tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857Thu, 08 Dec 2016 18:17:22 +0000USA::All PostsEUCFLEnergy UseOn the Light SideManufacturer LobbyingLight QualityLEDUnlisted CountriesHealth/Safety/EnvironmentUSA::State BillsHalogenPhilipsDocumentaries/VideosGermanyKevanShaw-SaveTheBulbCanadaUSA::Federal RepublicansCampaigns/PetitionsEmissionsHoward BrandstonRough Service BulbsUSA::Federal DemocratsLifespanExhibitMemorialOsram/SylvaniaUKGreenwashingLamps"Heatballs"HistorySmall ManufacturersBooksGEUSA::CaliforniaUSA::TexasLighting SalesRikGheysensUNEducationKevanShawLampmaking FolkAustralia/NZFacebook Bulb GroupGluehbirne.ist.orgGuest PostSurveysUSA::.....................................Freedom Light Bulb
If energy needs to be saved, there are <a name="joe" href="http://ceolas.net">good ways</a>
to do it.<br>
Government product regulation is not one of themhttp://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)Blogger218125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-4303166146875830033Thu, 16 Apr 2015 21:59:00 +00002015-07-01T09:37:56.557-04:00Why Continued Energy Saving Rules Make No Sense: Lighting as a Main Example<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a> Updated 17-22 April, including comments to EU legislation and added conclusion at the end<br /><br /><br />Why is it wrong to have rules that limit how much energy any product can use?<br /><br />>> Energy saving is not the only advantage a product can have<br />>> Enforcing lower energy use on any given product affects performance, usability and/or appearance as well as price, whether on buildings, cars or household products including lighting (<a href="http://ceolas.net/#cc21x">http://ceolas.net/#cc21x</a>)<br />>> Supposed savings are questionable at both overall life cycle and usage specific levels, and replacements may have their own environmental concerns.<br />>> Even if products needed targeting to save energy, there are better ways of doing it (consumer information, taxation+subsidy policies, marketing policies) <br />>> Future advantages of a banned product may be unknown <br /><br />Before running through these points as related to lighting, some comments on the recent EU Halogen ban decision.<br /><br /><br />Halogens have similarities to regular incandescent bulbs and are the last commonly available examples of allowed incandescent technology for general service lighting.<br />The EU has just announced a ban also on such forms, similar to current American, Australian and other legislation. The halogen ban is part of the several ongoing EU review processes on lighting, of which more can be seen on the related Facebook group.<br /><br />While this blog has covered why the original regulations made no sense, the irony is how in perspective of 2018 and beyond a ban not only on halogens but also a maintained ban on simpler incandescent bulbs makes even less sense than the ban in the first place.<br /><br />This relates to hailed market transformation effects, and, as will be seen, CREE (USA) and other manufacturers seem to be coming round to the idea that bans are not urgently needed - albeit one might note that they happily supported a ban on cheap generic patent-expired and comparatively unprofitable incandescents in the first place.<br />So an interesting polemic has arisen between manufacturers and energy saving agencies/consultants (eg The Danish agency, CLASP consultancy, and the ECEEE councillors that argued for keeping 2016 versus Lighting Europe manufacturer consortium that argued for 2020)<br />I will likely further cover EU decision matters in a separate post, but some points should be mentioned here. <br /><br /><br /><br />1. Whatever about temporarily allowing halogens to 2018, and perhaps beyond that in due course, it's odd to see a maintained ban on frosted (non-transparent halogen type) incandescents that meet required standards.<br />This was a legal add-on, unique to the EU in worldwide legislation. Original reason for this was that<br />"<i>Consumers desiring such lamps could buy CFL (fluorescent bulb) alternatives</i>"<br />However, given the LED switchover drive and that LEDs can be made transparent, such a ban seems unnecessary and unduly petty.<br />"<i>LED clear incandescent look-alikes are several years ahead of price and performance projections</i>" the European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ECEEE) emphatically <a href="http://www.eceee.org/all-news/press/2015/test-report-confirms-rapid-development-of-LED-lamps">state</a>.<br />So on EU logic there should be no difference made between any transparent and frosted bulbs: ban all or allow all that meet currently required standards.<br /><br /><br /><br />2. I note several stakeholder comments of the variety<br />"<i>New LEDs are/will be better and cheaper for consumer satisfaction on the lighting market</i>" <br />Also statements along the lines of <br />"<i>Habitual consumers will be happy with new technology once they have got used to it</i>".<br /><br />But what - exactly - is then the point in terms of any meaningful society savings of say a 2018 continued ban on what few people are assumed to still want (but might particularly appreciate)?<br />Basically,<br />A new product is desirable - why ban alternatives (little society saving) <br />A new product is not desirable - why ban alternatives (obvious enough)<br />More precisely, what the EU keeps missing - from their own stats - is that even pre 2009 ban, most households did and do have <b>some</b> "energy saving" light bulbs. They simply don't want <b>all</b> their light bulbs to be the same type, whether on light quality or usability or indeed their own logical cost-benefit analysis, where cheap ones make more sense for the many little used bulbs in their houses.<br /><br /><br />Ban proponents like ECEEE incongruously praise the "<i>much lower prices and much better performance levels</i>" of new LEDs and how great they are for consumers - and then the "massive multi-billion euro" saving from a ban.<br />But "massive future savings" <b>assumes few would buy</b> the supposedly "great" new LED lamps <b>if they could still buy</b> incandescent alternatives! No "big savings" if people would be buying the LEDs anyway.<br /><br />In this, they cite how badly CFLs fared.... <br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">Clear mains-voltage halogen lamps were allowed to remain on the market as a replacement for clear incandescent lamps and they were expected to constitute a relatively small share of total sales for non-directional lamps. New evidence has become available that has shown the market did not behave in this way, and instead halogen sales have quadrupled while CFL sales have declined.<br /></blockquote><br />So, as also from the official EU comment to the 2018 ban, <b>the fact that consumers prefer halogens is seen as why they should be banned</b>:<br />The consumer preference for halogens against CFLs is also assumed against LEDs, since otherwise there would not be the big savings as repeated in the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/news/phase-out-inefficient-lamps-postponed-1-september-2018">EU comments to legislation</a>. For good measure, they add that it's "the annual electricity consumption of Portugal" (it used to be "the annual consumption of Roumania" = progress?). As usual, an unsubstantiated media-friendly soundbite. Curiously, the CO2 emissions on equally unsubstantiated multi-year projections are supposedly equal to that "generated by around two million people per year" (new campaign: Stop breathing and save light bulbs?).<br />The questionable nature of energy/emission savings claims will be returned to below.<br /><br /><br /><i>Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose</i><br />Ban proponents previously praised CFLs in exactly the same way that they now praise LEDs. How "great" for consumers they would be, how "great" to ban the incandescent alternatives.<br /><br />Conversely, <br />one might take the line of Lighting Europe of waiting for the impact of better future LEDs and a smoother market transformation (their 2020 final ban suggestion).<br />Clearly LED sales are indeed increasing, but that leads to the opposite scenario:<br />What is the point of a ban if LEDs are indeed better, desirable, and bought, such that there are little or no society savings?<br />This also applies to already banned simple incandescents, and as will be seen CREE LED manufacturers are indeed suggesting the upholding a ban is no longer needed in the USA.<br /><br /><br />The duality was seen before.<br />VITO research figures ahead of 2009 suggested switchover already occuring from simple incandescents... so little savings from a ban, as highlighted by the Cambridge University Network, Scientific Alliance section:<br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">The total reduction in EU energy use would be 0.54 x 0.8 x 0.76% = 0.33%,<br />This figure is almost certainly an overestimate,<br />particularly as the inefficiency of conventional bulbs generates heat<br />which supplements other forms of heating in winter.<br />Which begs the question: is it really worth it?<br />Politicians are forcing a change to a particular technology which is<br />fine for some applications but not universally liked, and which has<br />disadvantages.<br />The problem is that legislators are unable to tackle the big issues of<br />energy use effectively, so go for the soft target of a high profile<br />domestic use of energy...<br />...This is gesture politics.<br /></blockquote><br />The notion of "little savings" not being appealing to the EU,<br />an alternative in-house agency report was duly commissioned suggesting that indeed there were many light bulbs to be switched, allowing for great consumer savings after all, since they would presumably not otherwise buy the great new light bulbs (being CFLs at the time).<br />[Note: The EU was criticised by their own scientific advisor (duly not re-hired!) for commissioning on-message studies for a desired outcome, laying on the gravy for research agencies who naturally want repeat business: <a href="http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-priorities-2020/eu-twisting-facts-fit-political-agenda-chief-scientist-says-302399">EU twisting facts to fit political agenda, chief scientist says</a> Also see the <a href="http://ceolas.net/#euban">EU Light Bulb Ban Story</a>]<br /><br /><br />Somewhere basic points are forgotten.<br />Light bulbs don't burn coal or give out CO2 gas: power plants do.<br />So the mandates on increasing "clean" production of energy correspondingly decreases lighting effects on the environment.<br /><br />Notice also that EU analysis is always about <b>projected</b> savings.<br />The current EU "reviews" of different lighting regulations conspicuously avoids any research to see if any savings have <b>actually</b> accrued from preceding regulations.<br />As will be seen, there are several reasons to doubt the savings...<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />3. In overall Ecodesign terms<br /><br />(i) That energy saving is not the only advantage a product can have<br /><br />(ii) That, unfortunately, enforcing lower energy use on a given product changes its characteristics eg usability, performance, appearance, as well as price, as per linked product examples <a href="http://ceolas.net/#cc21x">http://ceolas.net/#cc21x</a> covering buildings, cars, as well as washing machines and other household products.<br />The same document also deals with the specific advantages of halogens and of simpler incandescents, and extends other arguments made here.<br /><br />(iii) That "efficiency" is not "energy efficiency" but also about deliverance capability, such as the great difficulty to produce bright 100W+ omnidirectional lighting with fluorescent/LED bulb alternatives.<br />That "efficiency" can moreover relate to the few components incandescents need to produce such bright lighting.<br /><br />(iv) That supposedly old outdated technology is also well known technology in health and environmental perspectives.<br />LED flicker, point source glare, blue light and other issues have all been highlighted in recent years - including by LED proponents like the authoritative US journal "LEDs Magazine", for example the lighting program manager at the US Department of Energy in the "12 lessons" article<br /><a href="http://www.ledsmagazine.com/articles/print/volume-11/issue-3/features/programs/led-lighting-progresses-driven-by-lessons-learned.html">http://www.ledsmagazine.com/articles/print/volume-11/issue-3/features/programs/led-lighting-progresses-driven-by-lessons-learned.html</a><br /><br />Complex LED lighting is also environmentally resource demanding.<br />Recent French documentary on TV highlighted the multi-mineral content (as with pushed CFL or LED light substitutes) and consequent enormous resource loss of unrecycled "E-waste", EU sponsored recycling paybacks (as with VAT) leading to illegal dumping, or illicit deals with China etc that alternatively loses such mineral resources for the EU.<br /><br />(v) That supposed energy savings do not hold up on life cycle factors, especially with complex multi-component substitutes, not just in the sole assembly energy use that the EU and Osram confine themselves to measuring, but taking account of <b>every</b> life cycle stage all the way from mining and component manufacture through assembly, delivery and final recycling - and the transport of all components in all stages, including that of bunker oil powered ship transports from (and back to) China - compared to easily locally manufactured patent-free simple incandescent bulbs for true sustainability and local jobs - the EU admitting to 5000 job losses in the final years alone relating to the incandescent 2009 ban. As seen from the referenced EU comment they now add thousands more "inevitable" job losses.<br /><br /><br />(vi) That in relation to incandescent technology, the fact of a Phoebus cartel between major manufacturers giving 1000 hour limited standard incandescent lifespan does not relate to a true potential incandescent lifespan of 20 000 - 25 000 hours as per incandescents principally made for the mining industry at low cost eg Aero-Tech bulbs around 1.50 euro per bulb.<br />Encouraging open free market competition brings out the best products, rather than banning generic patent expired unprofitable choices.<br /><br /><br /><br />(vii) The further light bulb specific issues of a heat benefit payback for most industrialised countries as per referenced Finnish, German, UK and Canadian research.<br />Side by side bulb comparisons also do not take into account power factor (PF) issues of CFLs and LEDs affecting practical energy use, or actual usage situations, such as using several directional LEDs as replacements for omnidirectional incandescents, or indeed in touted money savings for consumers for rarely used bulbs in 30-40 lighting point households, or temporary usage.<br />Talk of "reducing consumer bills" carries little weight when electricity providers raise consumer charges to compensate for the shortfall and/or are compensated by the taxpayers via governments, as in the UK and several US states.<br />Unnecessary use is a waste, personal choice is not, for what after all is about electricity use - not about the use of lighting as such.<br /><br />Turning therefore to electricity use,<br />"20% lighting use in society", "millions tons CO2 saved" has nothing to do with actual fractional percentage electricity grid savings (as referenced, EU and US Dept of Energy data) from banning defined and domestically dominated lighting:<br />and even of that, a main usage in off-peak evening and night hours of low electricity demand does not not tax power plant electricity production anyway, specifically with "culprit" coal as also referenced, where commercially a minimal night level is maintained for wear and tear cost reasons and reason of slow stoking up to daytime level, a minimal level therefore not lowered further and that more than covers whatever bulbs people are using, therefore in effect without society energy/emission saving at such times.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />4. Even if targeting bulbs was still deemed necessary:<br />Why does the EU not consider taxation (EU set VAT directives on products), a more conventional way of lowering consumption, where even a relatively low taxation can act to cost cover subsidies for products judged more desirable, and thus equilibrate markets sufficiently to dampen "wrong" demand while still allowing choice for the most needy users.<br />Of course higher VAT also brings national governments - and the EU -a direct "own resource" income. <br />Bans give no such income.<br />Specific carbon taxes are an alternative.<br />Taxation is more flexible than blunt permanent bans at arbitrary cut-off points, and can cease when market transformation is deemed sufficient.<br /><br />Alternatively, "Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run" advertising is used by battery and washing up liquid manufacturers - LED manufacturers can do likewise, rather than lobbying for bans on patent expired unprofitable simple bulbs.<br />Philips slumbering lighting division bounced up to record profits on LED sales before (ironically) suffering from Chinese competition.<br /><br />The EU in their comments to the ban "<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/news/phase-out-inefficient-lamps-postponed-1-september-2018">helpfully</a>" state for light bulb manufacturers:<br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">Benefits for industry<br />This means significant extra revenue. <br />Moreover, these measures protect EU industry from competition from low-quality and inefficient imported products.<br /></blockquote>Better products for consumers arise from <b>increasing</b> rather than decreasing competition among manufacturers and bulb types.<br /><br />Susanne Hammarström of Sweden was head of the main Brussels based PR agency Diplomat-PR engaged in the lobbying on behalf of the light bulb manufacturers. Translated from the largest Swedish business paper, Dagens Industri, she says:<br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">The ban would never have happened, without the large and extensive lobby campaign, in all member countries, as well as towards The European Commission and the media<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br /><br />5. Products using energy above a given standard may have unknown future advantages.<br />Arbitrary legal cut-off points are set based on what alternatives are available. As with incandescent lighting, this effectively bans a given technology for defined purposes. <br />One often talks of <i>basic</i> and <i>applied</i> research at universities and other institutions. This is often used with regard to doing research for companies or out of a simple desire to make new discoveries without preconception. But if a product is already illegal there is little point in researching alternative use.<br />For example, bioluminescence (chemically produced light, as with glowworms) could hypothetically be an interesting new lighting development. But if it does not meet energy saving criteria in any required electrically assisted operation, it is illegal from the outset on legal luminaire qualifications for general purpose lighting.<br /><br />There is a direct historical audio parallel to lighting development.<br />The invention of solid state transistors (technically similar to solid state lighting, like LEDs) meant that radio valves or vacuum tubes (technically similar to incandescent light bulbs) could in many instances be replaced. So if the ban-happy EU, American and other bureaucrats had been around in the early 1950's, no doubt they would have drooled at the prospect of getting rid of the "energy guzzling valves". Unforeseen was the popularity these would come to have in guitar amps in the rock and roll evolution. Some might have said "thank goodness" for a ban, but along with other specialized uses it shows that the bureaucrats are actually (surprise) not Gods, in their mania to decree "what consumers should want to use".<br /><br />Another connection might be made with the new craze for vinyl records, in the sense that manufacturers ceasing to make "outdated" technology is <b>not the same</b> as politically banning it. <br />This means that if people want to make vinyl records, a vintage type car or other "old technology" products, they can. Politically banned products, they can't, even for their own use.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b> In Summary</b><br />Any energy saving directive should take into account<br />A. The effect of legislation<br />B. The concomitant value of any saving acquired.<br /><br />A.<br />Even within the Ecodesign doctrine, light bulb regulations are uniquely questionable.<br />A particularly simple technology that is particularly effective in purpose, namely to produce powerful bright light, is banned in favour of particularly complex technologies that with difficulty reach such bright levels.<br />Moreover, it is a technology with recognized output quality, producing omnidirectional broad spectrum light with a colour rendering index of 100%, and without the health and environmental recycling concerns raised by the pushed alternatives.<br /><br />On an open market any lighting product would be more reflective of inherent usage advantages:<br />= Incandescents as bulbs,<br />= Fluorescents as long tubes,<br />= LEDs as sheets,<br />as also originally developed in each case.<br />Today sees the oddity of heavily promoted expensive complex LED clones striving to approximate what simple incandescents can do.<br />It's as if all giraffes were destroyed, with the proponents excitedly proclaiming<br /><i>"But hey everybody, look at the elephants with longer necks that we are breeding!"</i><br /><br /><br />B.<br />The savings relate to the actual amount of switched bulbs pertaining to a ban, product related life cycle and usage effects, and factors related to electricity production<br /><br />Again, light bulb regulations are particularly questionable, in terms of comparative life cycle energy usavings when all stages are included, as well as in actual usage, and in grid electricity saving perspectives, as has been described.<br />René Kemna of the Dutch VHK research group has been leading the studies into the regulations, and stated at the last 5 February meeting: <br /><i>"A 100% primary energy input at the power plant actually results in 1% useful light."</i><br />Fractions of 1% in improved energy efficiency at the delivery end would therefore seem to be of negligible consequence in an overall perspective, all the more so taken with all the other mentioned factors.<br /><br />The time element is also relevant:<br />If a market switchover transformation has already occurred, little or no extra gain is achieved with a ban, and regressive purchase activity is presumably limited for the reasons given, including new LEDs being so "attractive for consumers".<br /><br />Indeed, CREE LED manufacturer in the USA has publicly announced that<br />"Incandescent bulb legislation doesn't matter"<br /><a href="http://www.ledsmagazine.com/articles/print/volume-12/issue-2/features/last-word/incandescent-bulb-legislation-doesn-t-matter.html">http://www.ledsmagazine.com/articles/print/volume-12/issue-2/features/last-word/incandescent-bulb-legislation-doesn-t-matter.html</a><br />Extracts put together:<br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">Even as consumers continue to evaluate and make lighting choices in favor of energy-efficient LED bulbs, many regulators are still concerned that the unenforced incandescent ban could set the country back in the execution of energy-efficient policies. <br />This would be true and problematic if the industry and consumers weren't already headed in the direction of energy efficiency. According to Cree's own consumer surveys, the ability to reduce in-home energy costs without compromising the lighting experience is the most important factor for consumers when they're choosing a light bulb. We've also found that most consumers are interested in LED bulbs because they last longer than traditional incandescent bulbs, and are environmentally friendly. Look at the consumer lighting market today and you'll see a wide range of energy-efficient options that didn't exist a few years ago. In the past two years alone, the quality of light from LEDs has risen sharply and the price has significantly dropped. <br />In the end, consumers are making educated, well thought-out choices in lighting, with or without legislation or its enforcement. The legislation and its enforcement are simply needless.<br /></blockquote><br />&nbsp;<br />Ergo: <br />LEDs are better - why ban incandescents<br />LEDs are not better - why ban incandescents<br />More to the point, all lighting types have advantages in specific uses, including mercury containing fluorescent tubes that may soon be targeted, and should not be banned unless health and safety in usage demands it.<br />As said, stats also show households do buy different bulb types, but don't want all bulbs to be the same type whether on light quality or the little savings from rarely used bulbs.<br /><br /><br />Some consider the saving of energy for society to be a priority concern - and why not.<br />But as shown this is minimal in terms of targeting light bulbs, and even if it was not, alternative policies would be better anyway, based on:<br />>> consumer information including clearer labelling (as is being introduced), or<br />>> taxation and subsidies as described, or<br />>> free market competition where "desirable" bulbs can still be helped to market and imaginative advertising applied, as happens with other initially expensive but long term saving products.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a name="banx"></a> <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a> 14 points, referenced: Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs. <br />&nbsp;http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-unnecessary-continuation-of-light.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-556582443784304821Mon, 09 Jun 2014 19:49:00 +00002014-06-09T15:51:37.728-04:00On the Light SideCartoons reacting to the ban<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a> <br />Not had any "On the Light Side" (<a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.ie/search/label/On%20the%20Light%20Side">section link</a>) posts for a while... banning bulbs sure has its absurd side.<br />The second one is from a while back here, many others been put online since then - some of the quirkier ones... <br /><br /><br /><br /><center><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xg9taoeJJSI/U3vANFCRXgI/AAAAAAAADYc/FP8HZqLYazs/s1600/empty_romm_not+notice_cartoon_400_536.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img style="padding:0px;" border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xg9taoeJJSI/U3vANFCRXgI/AAAAAAAADYc/FP8HZqLYazs/s400/empty_romm_not+notice_cartoon_400_536.jpg" /></a><br /><small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 170px;"><a href="http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/l/low_energy_light_bulbs.asp">cartoonstock.com</a></small></small><br /><br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2udCBweDlUg/U3vAbmteLqI/AAAAAAAADYk/Usd5RYl_nbc/s1600/Invest_Bulb_Cartoon_600_408.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img style="padding:0px;" border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2udCBweDlUg/U3vAbmteLqI/AAAAAAAADYk/Usd5RYl_nbc/s550/Invest_Bulb_Cartoon_600_408.jpg" /></a></div><small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 45px;"><a href="http://www.hellertoon.com/main.html">joe heller</a></small></small><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-q0kkX1skWr4/U3vAtsLM2TI/AAAAAAAADY0/kLYB2lKYl3k/s1600/protect_bulbs_497_393.gif" imageanchor="1" ><img style="padding:0px;" border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-q0kkX1skWr4/U3vAtsLM2TI/AAAAAAAADY0/kLYB2lKYl3k/s550/protect_bulbs_497_393.gif" /></a><br /><small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 65px;">source victoria times?</small></small><br /><br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gBJNzbYeQIY/U5YKJMEEwAI/AAAAAAAADaw/g_e3FZN5QhE/s1600/then_and_now_color_bw_light_620_508.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img style="padding:0px;" border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gBJNzbYeQIY/U5YKJMEEwAI/AAAAAAAADaw/g_e3FZN5QhE/s550/then_and_now_color_bw_light_620_508.jpg" /></a></div><small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 45px;"><a href="http://www.250news.com/blog/view/27231/1/colour+is+thing+of+the+past+once+incandescent+light+bulbs+are+banned">mackay 250news via paul fbook</a></small></small><br /></center><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a> <br />14 points, referenced: <br />Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs. <br />&nbsp;<br />http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2014/06/cartoons-reacting-to-ban.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-2385747904691375954Fri, 06 Jun 2014 18:41:00 +00002014-06-06T14:46:39.452-04:00EU"EU Twisting Facts to fit Political Agenda"<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <br /><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a><br />It is only human to decide what is right or wrong - and look for facts to prove you are right.<br />Certainly, a case could be made that it is done here, though I would argue that any such emphasis is to balance official information in support of bans.<br />For example, I think fluorescent bulbs are also useful and should not be banned.<br />Nevertheless, the original ban on incandescents was largely defended on supposed energy saving of fluorescent bulbs, which have many disadvantages as replacements, hence the criticism, and the same can be said of LED bulbs, hence the critical reviews on this site <i>in being pushed as replacements</i>.<br /><br />The point therefore is that political institutions should have an open perspective from the start.<br />Lighting choice issues apart, ruling authorities in the USA, EU and elsewhere see usage energy saving as some Holy Grail, getting even that wrong for <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#energy">several reasons</a>. <br />However, in the context here, it is also that they do not even consider factors not fitting in with their agenda, and when such factors (heat issue, full life cycle, power plant off-peak operation, environmental and health effects of replacement bulbs) are hard to measure, it provides an extra imperative to have follow up studies to see if supposed savings and usage safety were actually there.<br /><br />The issue becomes particularly poignant when the institution has a monopoly of launching legislative proposals for 500 million citizens - like the European Commission in the EU - and decisions, once taken, are hard to change.<br /><br />Insider or whistleblower criticism of political process gives extra credibility, as here.<br /><br />Recent article May 27 2014 by <a href="http://www.euractiv.com/bylines/fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric-simon">Frederic Simon</a> on <a href="http://www.euractiv.com/">EurActiv</a> site, extracts, my emphases:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"><center><big><b><a href="http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-priorities-2020/eu-twisting-facts-fit-political-agenda-chief-scientist-says-302399">EU Twisting Facts to fit Political Agenda</a></b></big></center><br />A big challenge for the next European Commission will be to disconnect its evidence gathering processes from the “political imperative” that’s driving policy proposals, according to Anne Glover, the EU’s chief scientific advisor.<br /><br /><br /><center><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FNs6VpFFq2g/U5IE4VupEeI/AAAAAAAADag/C8brMFgFqr0/s1600/EU-science_anne_glover_460_307.png" imageanchor="1" ><img style="padding:0px; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FNs6VpFFq2g/U5IE4VupEeI/AAAAAAAADag/C8brMFgFqr0/s320/EU-science_anne_glover_460_307.png" /></a><br /></center><br /><br />Speaking before the EU elections last week, Glover reflected upon her role, which was introduced by the outgoing President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso.<br /><br />Glover was appointed in December 2011 to provide the President of the EU Executive with first-class independent scientific advice. A trained biologist who holds a chair in Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of Aberdeen, she previously served a as chief scientific advisor for Scotland (2006-2011).<br /><br />More than two years into her job, she seems to have learned a great deal about the internal working of the EU’s flagship institution.<br /><br />And her assessment of what goes on inside the Commission’s walls is not rosy.<br /><br />“When I spoke to president Barroso about taking up this role, I said to him that for me it would only be attractive if I was regarded as an independent chief scientific advisor,” Glover told a briefing organised on 21 May by Eurochambres, the Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry.<br /><br />“What I said to him was that, for me to have any value or credibility, I need to focus on evidence and not on political considerations,” she recalled...<br /><br />A big challenge for the next European Commission will be to disconnect its evidence gathering processes from the “political imperative” that’s driving policy proposals, according to Anne Glover, the EU’s chief scientific advisor.<br /><br />Illustrating her point, she used a fictitious example:<br />“Let’s imagine a Commissioner over the weekend thinks, ‘Let’s ban the use of credit cards in the EU because credit cards lead to personal debt’.<br />So that commissioner will come in on Monday morning and say to his or her Director General, ‘<b>Find me the evidence that demonstrates that this is the case</b>.’” The Commissioner’s staff might resist the idea but in the end, she says, “they will do exactly what they’re asked” and “find the evidence” to show that credit card use leads to personal debt, even though this may not be the case in reality.<br />“So you can see where this is going,” Glover said: “You’re building up an evidence base which is not really the best.”<br /><br />To back its policy proposals, the Commission often outsources the evidence-gathering part of the job to external consulting firms, which provide ‘impact assessment studies’ or ‘research’ that are often branded as ‘independent’.<br />However, Glover says such <b>consultancies have little incentive to produce evidence that contradicts the Commission’s political agenda.<br />“If they want repeat business, [they] are not going to go out and find the evidence to show that this is a crazy idea,”</b> she says.<br /><br />To be fair, the Commission is not alone in trying to distort facts, Glover said. The same goes for the other two EU institutions – the European Parliament and the EU Council of Ministers, which represents the 28 EU member states.<br /><br />“What happens at the moment – whether it’s in Commission, Parliament or Council – is that time and time again, if people don’t like what’s being proposed, what they say is that there is something wrong with the evidence. So everybody blames the evidence and nobody is honest about the fact that in many cases, understanding the evidence is the best possible platform to make the logical extension into policy. But they don’t like it so they say ‘We need more evidence’...<br /><br />Crucially, Glover says <b>transparency in the evidence-gathering process</b> would be key, so that every stakeholder - whether a citizen, a business, a politician, a scientist – can look at the reasoning that’s behind policy proposals. "And that is all doable, it is not a fantasy. It would be quite easy to achieve," she says.<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><b>Comment</b><br /><br />This is not surprising, given the VITO and other test labs behind the light bulb ban, their assumptions without real life comparisons, and the current lack of 5-year review studies to see if supposed savings actually occurred, as covered before.<br /><br />Hardly a thoughtful European policy for the good of European citizens, who are never considered "stakeholders" in any decision affecting them.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a> <br />14 points, referenced:<br />Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs. <br />&nbsp;<br />http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2014/06/eu-twisting-facts-to-fit-political.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-9032451031156656844Fri, 16 May 2014 21:35:00 +00002014-05-16T17:35:45.889-04:00Updates "How Regulations are Wrongly Justified"<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a> <br />A reminder that separately from postings here, the page "How Regulations are Wrongly Justified" as linked below gets continuous major and minor updates, with the major updates noted at the top. In the last couple of days there have been several revisions and additions as seen.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a> <br />14 points, referenced:<br /> Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs. <br />&nbsp;http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2014/05/updates-how-regulations-are-wrongly.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-7145695667063292173Mon, 14 Apr 2014 17:37:00 +00002014-04-16T14:48:24.696-04:00EmissionsEnergy UseManufacturer LobbyingUSA::All PostsA JOLT with Sensible Energy Policy...<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] see<br />http://jolt.richmond.edu/index.php/blog-how-many-virginians-does-it-take-to-screw-up-a-light-bulb-phase-out/<br />http://jolt.richmond.edu/index.php/blog-how-many-virginians-does-it-take-to-screw-up-a-light-bulb-phase-out/#comment-403477--> <a name="banx"></a> <br />Interesting <a href="http://jolt.richmond.edu/index.php/blog-how-many-virginians-does-it-take-to-screw-up-a-light-bulb-phase-out/">article</a> regarding the overall point of banning light bulbs rather than dealing with power plants themselves for energy or emission policy<br />(light bulbs which don't themselves burn any fossil fuel or release any supposed global warming emissions, though the bulbs do provide a bit of heat!)<br /><br />"How many Virginians Does it Take to Screw-up a Light Bulb Phase-Out?"<br />April 11, 2014 by Kit Mathers, Associate Copy Editor, <a href="http://jolt.richmond.edu/">JOLT</a> (The Richmond Journal of Law and Technology)<br /><!-- <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-S3dk9LwxgIE/U0lfLJprrmI/AAAAAAAADXI/uqbjQckZaY4/s1600/Light_bulb_by_Geckly-268x201.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-S3dk9LwxgIE/U0lfLJprrmI/AAAAAAAADXI/uqbjQckZaY4/s320/Light_bulb_by_Geckly-268x201.jpg" /></a><br />--><br /><br /><img width="268" style="padding:0px; float:left; margin-top:.5em; margin-right:1em; margin-left:1em;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-S3dk9LwxgIE/U0lfLJprrmI/AAAAAAAADXI/uqbjQckZaY4/s268/Light_bulb_by_Geckly-268x201.jpg" alt="" /> <br /><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:8px;"><center><big><b><a href="http://jolt.richmond.edu/index.php/blog-how-many-virginians-does-it-take-to-screw-up-a-light-bulb-phase-out/">How many Virginians Does it Take to Screw-up a Light Bulb Phase-Out?</a></b></big></center><br />In January, Congress, through overwhelming bipartisan cooperation, approved, and President Obama signed into law, a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill; a provision of which precludes the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) from spending allocated funds to enforce twilight measures of a “light bulb phase-out” mandated by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (“EISA”).[1] <br /><br />The phase-out, which effectively began in January 2012, requires that light bulbs produce a certain level of brightness at specified energy levels.[2] <br /><br />Of particular significance to the average consumer, traditional incandescent light bulbs are incapable of fulfilling the new energy efficiency standards and as of January 1, 2014 60- and 40-watt incandescent light bulbs (which represent half of the consumer light bulb market) are no longer allowed to be manufactured or imported into the U.S.[3]<br /><br />Overall, the standards set forth by the EISA are predicted to result in annual electric bill savings of nearly $13-billion, power savings equivalent to the output of 30 large power plants, and will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 100 million tons per year.[4]<br /><br />The spending bill’s ban is not particularly formidable from the perspective of many environmentalists and “pro phase-out” light bulb manufacturers who have characterized it as a nuisance that can’t possibly derail the “market shift” toward more energy-efficient light bulbs.[5]<br /><br />But should we be more supportive of the spending bill’s ban despite the EISA’s potential environmental benefits? <br />In support of the ban, House Republicans have stated that EISA phase-out requirements are characteristic of government overreach, and enforcement measures should not be tolerated.[6] <br /><br />Is there any merit to the House Republicans’ argument? <br />Is federal product regulation really the proper avenue for catalyzing change in consumer power consumption? <br />The tension at the heart of the light bulb phase-out is representative of a fundamental issue that must be addressed in any discussion of “where” energy regulations should be focused. I tend to agree with House Republicans who are wary of the government’s reach into consumer purchasing power, but perhaps end-user regulation (“downstream”) is the most parsimonious way of realizing change in energy use and accompanying (upstream) emissions. <br />Upstream regulation is inescapably difficult. State and federal regulation of power plants and their emissions is tedious work, often drawn out interminably by litigation. But then again, why not increasingly regulate power plants themselves if we are operating under the guise that the end goal is to limit carbon emissions and power plant out-put? It’s not as though the light bulbs are the source of poor energy management decisions or egregious carbon emissions. Understanding why the EISA, in large part, came to be makes the decision to regulate downstream consumer choice even less palatable.<br /><br />While the EISA does not outrightly proscribe the manufacture or importation of all incandescent light bulbs, it has the net effect of increasing market prevalence and selection of more expensive, compact fluorescent light bulbs (“CFLs”) and light emitting diodes (“LEDs”) which is extremely beneficial to major light bulb manufacturers. <br />As Timothy Carey of the Washington Examiner details, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act “wasn’t a case of an industry getting on board with an inevitable regulation in order to tweak it. The lighting industry was the main reason the legislation was moving.”[7] The light bulb industry is, by its nature, a competitive market with no significant impediments to entry. Characteristic of such competitive markets, under the neoclassical economic model, is product pricing at marginal cost – the cost of producing one additional unit of output- which results in low profit margins.[8] GE, Philips and Sylvania, which dominate the U.S. incandescent light bulb market, want to “convert their dominance into price hikes,” but because market entry is not significantly encumbered by manufacturing or regulatory costs, consumers will gladly purchase new alternative brands that offer bulbs at, or close to, marginal cost.[9] Market giants, with significant capital available for research and development programs, sought to extinguish the threat of competition (which keeps profit margins low) by expending significant money to improve the incandescent light bulb, primarily through advancing halogen, LED and fluorescent technologies.[10] These “energy efficient bulbs” sell at a much higher price point compared to incandescent light bulbs, and because of this, consumer choice has remained somewhat stagnant and heavily biased toward incandescents. Light bulb manufacturers, aware that consumers won’t willingly skirt cost benefit considerations in light bulb selection, have thus collaborated with groups like the NRDC in lobbying for the phase out of incandescents; their agenda being the “push” of profitable products rather than environmental conservancy.[11] Undoubtedly, there are great advantages to newer bulb technologies, as well as associated costs.[12] However, it’s extremely hard to justify the handcuffing of consumer freedom of choice when it is being instituted by government elites and unelected bureaucrats.[13]<br /><br />All in all, it is extremely important to ask, where (or at what phase) should regulatory efforts be focused (and why)? The upstream power plants, downstream consumers, or both? <br />Perhaps the fact that light bulb manufacturers are sustaining windfall profits from federal regulation is an inevitable consequence; in any regulatory effort there will always be a party that benefits, perhaps grossly, from regulation. It will be interesting to see what happens to the spending bill’s ban in the coming months, and whether or not downstream regulation will accomplish its goals.<br /><br />[1] Bill Chappell, Obama Signs Trillion-Dollar Spending Bill, NPR, (January 17, 2014), <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/17/263511534/obama-signs-trillion-dollar-federal-spending-bill">http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/17/263511534/obama-signs-trillion-dollar-federal-spending-bill</a>.<br /><br />[2] Jeremy Kaplan, Last light: Final Phaseout of Incandescent Bulbs Coming Jan. 1, FOX NEWS, (December 13, 2013), <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/12/13/final-phase-out-incandescent-light-bulbs-jan-1/">http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/12/13/final-phase-out-incandescent-light-bulbs-jan-1/</a>.<br /><br />[3] Patrick J. Kiger, U.S. Phase-out of Incandescent Light Bulbs Continues in 2014 with 40-, 60-Watt Varieties, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, (December 31, 2013), <a href="http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2013/12/31/u-s-phase-out-of-incandescent-light-bulbs-continues-in-2014-with-40-60-watt-varieties/">http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com/2013/12/31/u-s-phase-out-of-incandescent-light-bulbs-continues-in-2014-with-40-60-watt-varieties/</a>.<br /><br />[4] NRDC Fact Sheet, Shedding New Light on the U.S. Energy Efficiency Standards for Everyday Light Bulbs, NRDC, (January 2013), <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/energy/energyefficientlightbulbs/files/shedding-new-light-FS.pdf">http://www.nrdc.org/energy/energyefficientlightbulbs/files/shedding-new-light-FS.pdf</a>.<br /><br />[5] Wendy Koch, Congress to Bar Enforcement of Light-bulb Phaseout, USA TODAY, (January 14, 2014), <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/14/coal-projects-light-bulb-rules/4476103/">http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/14/coal-projects-light-bulb-rules/4476103/</a>.<br /><br />[6] Timothy P. Carney, Industry, not Environmentalists, Killed Traditional Light Bulbs, WASHINGTON EXAMINER, (January 1, 2014), <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2541430">http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2541430</a>.<br />[Tim Carney has extensively and critically covered the issue, from an industrial political angle, as covered on this blog here before]<br /><br />[7] Id.<br /><br />[8] See id.<br /><br />[9] See id.<br /><br />[10] See id.<br /><br />[11] For a comical portrayal of the “story behind the ban” (in both the U.S. and Canada) see this crude cartoon: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta2ozf_uJJ8">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta2ozf_uJJ8</a> (a feature from infra note 15). <br />["Mr Stinkypants" as also featured before here on freedomlightbulb]<br /><br />[12] It’s contended that new light bulb technologies are not all that “efficient” when used by the average consumer. I recommend looking at Paul Wheaton’s website for a critique of the science behind the phase-out: <a href="http://www.richsoil.com/CFL-fluorescent-light-bulbs.jsp">http://www.richsoil.com/CFL-fluorescent-light-bulbs.jsp</a>. <br />[Good article, also linked here previously]<br /><br />[13] See id. <br /></blockquote><br /><br /><big><b>Comment</b></big><br />"It's not as though the light bulbs are the source of poor energy management decisions or egregious carbon emissions."<br />Exactly<br />Light bulbs don't burn coal or release CO2 gas.<br />Power plants might - and might not.<br />If there's a problem - Deal with the problem.<br /><br />Little attention is paid to practicality rather than side-by-side bulb energy saving theory.<br />This includes not just compensatory consumer behavior, like leaving lights on because cheaper (and fluorescent on-off switching decreases life span) or using more LEDs due being directional, or higher than supposed wattages for perceived output weakness etc.<br /><br />Specifically, it includes the main evening/night off-peak time of use of simple incandescent bulbs when surplus electricity available, and coal plants in particular - the main "culprit" - effectively burn the same coal regardless of bulb used, due their minimum night cycle level covering any such demand and not being lowered due operational cost<br />(slow downturn and stoking up to daytime level and associated wear and<br />tear).<br /><br />As referenced with grid data, coal plant and energy commission references etc, below.<br />Including that those manufacturers already cooperated in the Phoebus cartel to limit standard incandescent lifespan to 1000 hrs...<br />There is nothing wrong in manufacturers seeking and lobbying for profitable decisions.<br />There is every wrong in politicians handing them profits at the stroke of a pen.<br /><br />As for the "necessity" to regulate given that consumers prefer cheap products that hardly holds up either. Plenty of other products are marketed and sold as being "Expensive to buy but Cheap in the long run".<br />And, even if bulbs "had to" be targeted, competition stimulation (helping new bulbs to market without continuing subsidy) or taxation/subsidy policy, taxing cheap bulbs which could cover price lowering subsidy on alternatives, would still be more relevant to both supposedly save energy, and keep choice.<br /><br />How many politicians should it take to change a light bulb?<br />None.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a> <br />14 points, referenced: <br />Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.<br />&nbsp;http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-jolt-with-sensible-energy-policy.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-354419376178272151Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:49:00 +00002014-04-16T14:45:03.309-04:00Energy UseLifespanLighting SalesSmall ManufacturersUSA::All PostsUSA::CaliforniaDisc Power<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a><br /><!-- 2 pack image http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0181/6907/products/powerdisc_2pack_large.jpg?v=1393316652 --><br /><center><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-K1HToq9LmHk/U0fzHq_fbEI/AAAAAAAADWQ/it7mSnMOxMA/s1600/pile_discs_235_235.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img style="padding:0px;" border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-K1HToq9LmHk/U0fzHq_fbEI/AAAAAAAADWQ/it7mSnMOxMA/s320/pile_discs_235_235.jpg" /></a><br /></center><br /><br />It should be clear by now to readers of this blog how incandescent light bulbs are popular, simple, cheap and yes, efficient, in needing few parts to produce bright light, and without supposed energy saving to society (incandescents as the "<a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/incandescents-as-real-green-light-bulbs.html">real green</a>" bulbs).<br /><br />Unsurprising, then, that people around the world are using workarounds to be able to keep using them. Dumb governments, who make pointless and unpopular laws to suit lobbying profitmakers rather than their citizens, will always find such reactions.<br /><br />In Europe as in North America, one such avenue has been the use of still legal "rough service" type of bulbs, as well as currently temporarily allowed halogen types.<br />There are also alternative voltage and current altering ways (in bulbs or externally) that extend incandescent lifetime albeit with some brightness loss.<br />The various workarounds were most recently covered in the post "<a href="http://freedomlightbulb.org/2014/01/usa-and-canada-light-bulb-ban-now-and.html">USA and Canada Light Bulb Ban: Now and in the Future</a>" from earlier this year.<br /><br />One innovative way was as seen recently launched in the USA by two bright entrepreneurs, Lisa Elder and Trishah Woolley, using a disc with any ordinary light bulb.<br />To expand a little more about the California based Power Disc venture, edited extracts from the website, <a href="http://powerdisc.com">powerdisc.com</a>...<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1Nx-A8C_kiw/U0fzJ3vexEI/AAAAAAAADWY/SjJe3VsvEQU/s1600/Powerdisc_logo_490_153.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img style="padding:0px;" border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1Nx-A8C_kiw/U0fzJ3vexEI/AAAAAAAADWY/SjJe3VsvEQU/s320/Powerdisc_logo_490_153.jpg" /></a><br /><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">It consists of a nylon reinforced thermoset plastic disc, a solid-state rectifying diode and a foam washer with an adhesive surface. The PowerDiscTM is attached to the base of a light bulb by means of the 3M adhesive coated foam so that the center contact of the bulb is in contact with one end of the diode. When screwed into a light socket, the other end of the diode contacts the center contact of the light socket.<br /><br />By converting the electricity power used by the bulb from AC to DC, the PowerDisc™ significantly reduces energy consumption up to 42% and also extends the bulb life up to 100 times therefore reducing bulb replacement costs.<br /><br />In other words, 120 volts of alternating current (AC) are converted to approximately 85 volts direct current (DC). <br />The light bulb filaments, that actually create the light we see, will burn at a much lower temperature...The degree to which the filament is heated is directly related to the life of the bulb. <br /><br />Using the formula from the General Electric Incandescent Lamps Booklet (ref. GE #TP-1100R2 5/84) we calculate the life of the bulb with the reduced voltage.... example...<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-a8B0jXjdaAA/U0gHXvq1ebI/AAAAAAAADWo/7D0ZAjGHBHI/s1600/powerdisc_life_extension_formula.-224_300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img style="padding:0px;" border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-a8B0jXjdaAA/U0gHXvq1ebI/AAAAAAAADWo/7D0ZAjGHBHI/s320/powerdisc_life_extension_formula.-224_300.jpg" /></a></div><br /><br />[On the light output reduction issue, making comparisons:]<br /><br />As it is well known in the industry, all energy efficient light bulbs will have some reduction in lumens (light output), initially up to 30% over the first couple of months. Take note of the packaging for CFL and LED bulbs, they claim they will operate at 70% efficacy - which means they know their bulbs will lose 30% in lumens. Example, the packaging states 1000 lumens but they "guarantee" that the bulb will operate at 700 lumens. <br /><br />Also the "long life" incandescent and halogen bulbs which operate at 130 volts, when you use it in a 120 volt socket, there is an immediate 25% lumen loss from what is stated on the packaging. Example, the packaging states 1000 lumens but in a 120V socket it is really 750 lumens. <br /><br />With the PowerDisc there is also an initial lumen loss, the difference is the bulb will maintain that lumen level for the life of the bulb- it won't get dimmer and dimmer over time until it burns out. If it is necessary to maintain similar lumen levels it is recommended to increase the wattage of the light bulb used. The lumen level of the light bulb is dependent upon the manufacturer, clear or frosted and type of light bulb being used. Also keep in mind the lumen level you have upon insertion will be the lumen level for the rest of the life of your bulb until the day it burns out, which means it does not diminish over time, whereas with CFLs and LEDs you get around a 30% lumen loss in the first couple of months, then it slowly decreases until it is very dim. This makes for safety and security issues in certain areas.<br /><br />If it is important to maintain the visible light level, a higher wattage bulb should be used...but as bulb wattage increases, efficiency in the transformation of electricity to light also increases.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y-UJF8bbJdE/U0gNFg-2ADI/AAAAAAAADW4/FL4RrCu6NZA/s1600/powerdisc_2pack_large-250_250.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img style="padding:0px;" border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y-UJF8bbJdE/U0gNFg-2ADI/AAAAAAAADW4/FL4RrCu6NZA/s320/powerdisc_2pack_large-250_250.jpg" /></a></div></blockquote><br /><br />So to begin with the downside, there is a seeming 25-30% brightness loss which means higher electricity costs for a bulb of given brightness, compared with an ordinary simple incandescent bulb.<br />But... the point is of course is that as such bulbs gradually get banned (and in the USA as in Europe there is talk of controlling the availability of rough service incandescents for ordinary consumers), it allows the extended use of any such bulb without hoarding. <br />Also, as they say, fluorescents and LEDs dim as they are used, reducing their effective light output too.<br />Finally the advantage of not having to change bulbs may be useful in some locations.<br /><br />Overall, good to see this innovative spirit from others who are against the ban - and doing something about it!<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a> <br />14 points, referenced: <br />Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs. <br />&nbsp;http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2014/04/disc-power.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-201779395470424755Fri, 04 Apr 2014 20:58:00 +00002014-04-12T11:49:09.527-04:00Double Dumb IKEA 2016 LED Bulb Policy<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a> <br /><br /><br />short version (11 secs)<br /><center><iframe width="600" height="330" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/N8Z10WYrMlg?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br /></center><!-- 640" height="360" --><br /><br />full version (1 minute 1 second)<br /><center><iframe width="600" height="330" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/qvZUEDEZQBI?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br /></center><br /><br /><br />IKEA, as some may know, made a big noise about not selling incandescent light bulbs a while back, pushing fluorescent bulb replacements - ahead of any government ban.<br /><br />Fluorescent bulbs have come under increasing criticism, with LED bulbs becoming the new rage:<br />So IKEA then make a big noise about how they are not going to sell either incandescent or fluorescent bulbs, only selling LED bulbs from 2016 - again ahead of any government ban.<br />The above video arises from a commercial currently running in Europe, though the policy was announced in 2012 (LEDs magazine <a href="http://www.ledsmagazine.com/content/leds/en/articles/iif/2012/10/ikea-stores-will-only-sell-led-lighting-by-2016.html">article</a>)<br /><br />IKEA are of course perfectly free to sell what they want:<br />But normally stores don't promote sales based on excluding alternatives.<br />IKEA effectively say that <b>people are too stupid to choose themselves - so IKEA will choose for them</b>!<br /><br /><br />Unfortunately LED bulbs themselves are increasingly being shown to have several problems,<br />as per official studies.<br />Hence the acknowledging of problems in an 11 point rundown in recent weeks, just as the IKEA ad is running... <br /><a href="http://www.ledsmagazine.com/articles/print/volume-11/issue-3/features/programs/led-lighting-progresses-driven-by-lessons-learned.html">LEDs Magazine article</a> March 2014, point title extracts quoted below. <br />LEDs magazine, as linked before, is obviously in favor of LED technology, so the media source is interesting of itself.<br />As is the author: "James Broderick is the lighting program manager at the US Department of Energy." Of course he believes the problems will be solved, he could hardly keep his job otherwise in the ban-promoting Department...<br /><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">Lesson 1:....testing requirements necessary to counter exaggerated claims of performance by some manufacturers ...led to high testing costs.<br /><br />Lesson 2: Despite the promise of long life, there’s no standard way to rate the lifetime and reliability of LED lighting products.<br /><br />Lesson 3: Although specifiers prefer complete families of products, the rapid evolution of LED technology presents a challenge to manufacturers in creating and maintaining complete product lines.<br /><br />Lesson 4: The range of color quality available with LED lighting products, and the limitations of existing color metrics, may confuse users.<br /><br />Lesson 5: The color delivered by some LEDs shifts enough over time to negatively impact adoption in some applications.<br /><br />Lesson 6: Some LEDs flicker noticeably, which may negatively impact adoption in some applications.<br /><br />Lesson 7: LEDs can cause glare, which may negatively impact adoption in some applications.<br /><br />Lesson 8: Achieving high-quality dimming performance with LED lamps is difficult....<br /><br />Lesson 9: Greater interoperability of lighting control components and more sensible specifications of lighting control systems are required to maximize the energy savings from LED lighting<br /><br />Lesson 10: Lack of LED lighting product serviceability and interchangeability has created market adoption barriers in certain sectors.<br /><br />Lesson 11: Existing lighting infrastructure limits the full potential of SSL; more effort is needed to open the doors to new lighting systems and form factors.<br /></blockquote><br />That follows on from several other LED issues highlighted,<br />eg French official Health Agency ANSES that keep complaining that EU have not acted appropriately regarding point source glare, blue light and other possible problems...<br />"<a href="http://www.anses.fr/fr/content/led-diodes-%C3%A9lectroluminescentes">Effets sanitaires des systèmes d’éclairage utilisant des diodes électroluminescentes</a>" arising from a large cross-disciplinary study.<br /><br />Given the IKEA "green" tone, <b>LED environmental issues</b> should particularly be noted.<br />Thereby another large cross-disciplinary and cross-institutional study, this time by UC Davis (California USA) and others, showing LED problems from another angle, their great complexity using up rare earth mineral resources, and their toxic mineral content.<br />As per Scientific American article and references, "<a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=led-lightbulb-concerns">The Dark Side of LED Lightbulbs"</a>"<br /><br />This is only the beginning, because the life cycle energy use and emissions of LEDs, (beyond the usually only considered assembly stage), includes <b>raw material mining, component manufacture, assembly, recycling (as recommended per studies) and, not least, transport in all stages</b>.<br />Much CFL/LED manufacture is outsourced to China, so considerable transport in the distributive phase alone - on bunker oil fueled ships. More on these issues via end link below.<br /><br />So much for <b>"IKEA green policy"</b><br /><br /><br /><br />The overall point is of course that <b>all lighting has advantages and disadvantages, also environmentally</b>.<br /><br />Yes, incandescents use more energy on side-by-side comparisons.<br />But they also have limited life cycle energy use (also from being patent expired and simple, so more easily made locally by small firms - sustainably!).<br />The energy use is mainly off peak night time anyway when surplus electricity capacity available and same coal (the main "culprit") usually burned with effectively <b>same emissions regardless of bulb used</b> at such main times, since turning coal plants down and up again to daytime levels is operatively slow and expensive (wear and tear etc) as amply referenced in the 14 point rundown linked at the bottom of this post.<br /><br />Again,<br />fluorescents have been castigated on well known mercury and radiation issues, but have their useful and far greater energy saving application as long tubes rather than bulbs, in situations where light left on for relatively large areas for long periods (office areas, also some kitchens)<br /><br />Again,<br />LED technology, while having the environmental and other issues mentioned, is mainly useful as sheets, as originally applied, rather than incandescent-clone-bulbs, that IKEA are now happy to solely promote.<br /><br />On an IKEA petty pointless ban-happy attitude, presumably they should soon turn to selling candles.<br />But then candles, apparently, have a relatively high CO2 related index and their own environmental issues, taking in any use of animal fats (stearin) and paraffin wax.<br /><br /><br /><br />IKEA unsurprisingly want good publicity given multiple investigations into <a href="http://www.the-latest.com/ikea-exposed-over-child-labour-and-green-issues">cheap labour, child labour</a>, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/nov/16/ikea-regrets-forced-labour-germany">political prisoner labour</a> etc they have apparently used...<br /><br />The irony of <b>using a green forest</b> in the video:<br />Given all the wood IKEA uses for furniture and the issues from that, with The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Feb 2014 just as the ad is being shown, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2565989/Is-Ikea-cutting-600-year-old-trees-use-flat-pack-furniture-Swedish-giant-loses-forestry-stewardship-certificate-felling-600-year-old-trees-Russia.html">withdrawing certification</a> for the IKEA forestry company (Swedwood) on grounds of malpractice.<br />Also earlier alleged illegal logging from Chinese suppliers, as covered in the first labour link above. <br />Also more on using <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/eco-nomics/2012/06/06/ikea-under-fire-for-clearing-ancient-russian-forest/">old forests</a> in Finland and Russia.... etc as per online search.<br /><!-- http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/02/forest-stewardship-council-pulls-ikea-sustainable-certification/ --><br />In fairness, nearly all big multinationals come in for criticism one way or another, as per Nike and other scandals, given the difficulty there may be of following the supply chain and everybody involved.<br /><br />But trying to score some sort of compensating environmental "brownie points" by jumping on the bulb ban bandwagon can and should backfire on the basis of what is, and is not, relevant and true.<br /><br /><br /> <br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a><br />14 points, referenced:<br />Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.<br />&nbsp;http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2014/04/double-dumb-ikea-2016-led-bulb-policy.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-7886514327527922849Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:31:00 +00002014-01-22T12:33:04.226-05:00CanadaEmissionsEnergy UseCanada Light Bulb Heat and CO2 Emissions<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <br /><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a> <br />More on Canada light bulb heat issue:<br />As per the recent <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2014/01/canada-government-research-on-light.html">previous post</a> Government's own research shows savings are negligible when room heating is welcome.<br />The point of course is not "to heat your room with light bulbs", simply the benefit when light is wanted and the heat is useful, as at most times when it is dark in Canada.<br /><br />Several more Canadian and other country studies at <a href="http://ceolas.net/#li6x">http://ceolas.net/#li6x</a>.<br />These also include the CO2 emission issue:<br />That "clean" bulb electricity lowering the need for "dirty" room heating source can save CO2 emissions rather than increase them, as usually supposed<br />(A further reason that CO2 or other emissions are not increased is that coal plants, the main emission source, effectively burn the same coal anyway at the evening-night times when incandescent bulbs are mostly used. <br />This is from operational factors, their minimum night cycle level, as they are slow and expensive to power down and up including wear and tear, compared to simply keep burning coal at reduced levels that still cover what bulbs people may or may not want to use. <br />No - there isn't any politician or energy savings agency that takes such practical factors into account, just another reason for the pointlessness behind banning bulbs, as per the end link below).<br /><br /><br />A recent January 16 <a href="http://canadianenergyissues.com/2014/01/16/incandescent-ban-illustrates-urgent-need-for-public-carbon-education/">article</a> on <a href="http://canadianenergyissues.com/">Canadian Energy Issues</a> website by <a href="http://canadianenergyissues.com/about-steve-aplin/">Steve Aplin</a> again points out the emission saving fallacy when a non-CO2 emitting electricity source replaces an emitting source of ordinary room heating.<br /><br /><br /><br />Extracts:<br /><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OImxKB09IPg/Ut_7nV8Qv8I/AAAAAAAADVE/87r9cvi2s78/s1600/Steve-Aplin-at-F2-265x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OImxKB09IPg/Ut_7nV8Qv8I/AAAAAAAADVE/87r9cvi2s78/s200/Steve-Aplin-at-F2-265x300.jpg" /></a><br /><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"><center><big><b><a href="http://canadianenergyissues.com/2014/01/16/incandescent-ban-illustrates-urgent-need-for-public-carbon-education/">Incandescent ban illuminates urgent need for public carbon education</a></b></big></center><br /><br />If I can get heat from a low- or zero-carbon source, I am more than happy to choose it over stuff like gasoline or wood. And because I know something about the carbon content of each watt of heat from the different things that make heat, and because I live in Ontario, I would choose Ontario grid electricity over every other source that is available to me.<br /><br />This is why I shake my head when governments buy into the pseudo-green groupthink that produced the ban on incandescent lightbulbs in Canada. Incandescent lightbulbs convert most of the electricity running through them into heat; only a small percentage—as little as five percent, according to this Popular Mechanics article—goes into producing light. My take on that is: who cares.<br /><br />In Toronto, Ontario’s capital and Canada’s biggest city, artificial heat is used pretty much from September 15 to June 1. (A city bylaw requires landlords to provide artificial heat to rented homes so that their indoor temperature is maintained at at least 21 °C.) That means that from Sept. 15 to June 1—i.e., in 259 days out of the year—the heat produced by an indandescent lightbulb is actually useful in Toronto residences. Who cares if an incandescent lightbulb turns most of the electricity running through it into heat.<br /><br />Now, what is the environmental upshot of that electric heat?<br />You can measure this very easily. Table 1 in the left-hand sidebar provides the hourly carbon content of Ontario electricity. [see the original article, which also provides the calculations to arrive at the data below] This is given in the bottom row of the Table, and is called the CO2 intensity per kilowatt-hour (CIPK) of grid electricity. At eight a.m. today (January 16 2014), Ontario’s CIPK of grid electricity was 54.3 grams. The CIPK varies from hour to hour, depending on the generators that feed the grid in each hour. With the current mix of generation sources, Ontario’s CIPK averaged over a year is around 82 grams....<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3i01COT0mkg/Ut_6U0VvJAI/AAAAAAAADUc/w3DHDZgSLBc/s1600/gas-vs-ontario-electric-heat-300x264.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img style="padding:0px; float:left; margin-right:2em; margin-left:1em;" border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-3i01COT0mkg/Ut_6U0VvJAI/AAAAAAAADUc/w3DHDZgSLBc/s250/gas-vs-ontario-electric-heat-300x264.jpg" /></a>Using the Ontario average annual CIPK of 82 grams, that 0.95 kWh of electrically generated heat comes with 77.9 grams of CO2.....<br />Using a natural gas-fired heater to provide the 0.95 kWh of heat, assuming perfect efficiency (which in the case of a combustible heat source is thermodynamically impossible), you would produce 167 grams of CO2 <br /><br /><br /><br />So here is a question for David Suzuki and all those applauding the ban on incandescent lights:<br />Is it better to put 77.9 grams or 167 grams of CO2 into the air?<br /><br />It is pretty clear that for 259 days of the year in Toronto Ontario (and more than 259 days in points further north), the heat from an indandescent light is actually beneficial. And with Ontario grid electricity being as clean as it is today, that heat from the incandescent light is demonstrably and provably cleaner than that from the next-cleanest dedicated heat source.<br /><br /><i>The author is Vice President of Energy and Environment at the <a href="http://www.hdpgroup.com/">HDP Group</a> Inc., an Ottawa-based management consultancy</i><br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br /><center><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nIIB0VFJdUM/Ut_6lX5x6YI/AAAAAAAADU0/jOqWlupejtE/s1600/hanging_incandescent-lightbulb_275_183.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nIIB0VFJdUM/Ut_6lX5x6YI/AAAAAAAADU0/jOqWlupejtE/s320/hanging_incandescent-lightbulb_275_183.jpg" /></a><br /></center><br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a> <br />14 points, referenced: <br />Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.<br /><br />&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2014/01/canada-light-bulb-heat-and-co2-emissions.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-6738018815570421715Thu, 16 Jan 2014 21:04:00 +00002014-01-22T12:34:09.813-05:00USA::All PostsUSA::Federal Republicans Bloomfield Opinion: Incandescent Bulbs<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <br /><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a> <br />After a quiet start to the New Year, a lot of reaction - as seen by the last posts - has suddenly sprung up to the light bulb regulations in Canada and in particular the USA, obvious enough with its much bigger media market.<br /><br />While many are of the typical "people stocking up", "what are your choices" variety, some more critical ones are also appearing.<br />The following can be said to be typical of those seeking limited government in general, more obvious from reading the full article.<br /><br />Probably from being called "Freedom Light Bulb" the assumption keeps being made that this blog is about such Freedom of Choice.<br />Yes - and No.<br />As covered in the <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/about-this-blog.html">About this Blog</a> page, the particular point of banning bulbs is how wrong it is from <b>every</b> aspect and <b>every</b> ideology, left, green, or right, that is, on actual and relevant energy savings, on overall sustainability and environmental perspectives, and ignoring that, still wrong on targeting bulbs by banning some of them. <br />Even if targeting is desired, <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#market">market</a> solutions are still possible, while on a liberal left perspective, a <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#tax">taxation</a> policy would be more logical, as it is about consumption reduction rather than banning a product unsafe to use. <br /><br />But free choice also certainly comes into it - all types of lighting having their advantages for different uses, and as the following says, a ban is clearly wrong on that basis too.<br /><br />Below, Jan 16 <a href="http://www.northjersey.com/news/environment/local_environment/240412611_Bloomfield_opinion__Incandescent_bulbs.html">column</a> in <a href="http://www.northjersey.com/">North Jersey News</a> (Bloomfield Life) <a href="http://www.commonsensenj.com/">Sue Ann Penna</a> of <a href="http://www.citizensforlimitedgov.org/">Citizens for Limited Government</a>, also with a radio <a href="http://www.blogtalkradio.com/commonsensenj">show</a><br /><!-- http://bloomfield.patch.com/groups/sue-ann-pennas-blog/p/bp--the-benefits-of-a-limited-government --><br /><br />Article Excerpts<br /><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2MG_GCR4WqE/UthITTAIZKI/AAAAAAAADT4/HoJfaY20st0/s1600/Sue_Ann_Penna_CLG_104_101.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2MG_GCR4WqE/UthITTAIZKI/AAAAAAAADT4/HoJfaY20st0/s320/Sue_Ann_Penna_CLG_104_101.jpg" /></a><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"><center><big><b><a href="http://www.northjersey.com/news/environment/local_environment/240412611_Bloomfield_opinion__Incandescent_bulbs.html">Bloomfield opinion: Incandescent Bulbs</a></b></big></center><br />Approximately two thirds of Americans are not aware that the Thomas Edison incandescent light bulbs we have known all our life are now illegal to produce or import into the United States, effective Jan. 1. The patent for the incandescent light bulb was issued on Jan. 27, 1880.<br /><br />Along with the death of the light bulb goes the death and destruction of another industry at the hands of the federal government.<br /><br />The last light bulb factory in Winchester, Va., closed in 2010, taking with it 200 jobs. To add insult to injury, the costly government regulated light bulbs will now be manufactured in China, since there are no manufacturing plants in the United States.<br /><br />As recent as last week, U.S. Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) proposed legislation to repeal the ban on incandescent light bulbs....Once again, government elites and unelected bureaucrats, who could have turned around bad policy, are making decisions for us and impeding our freedom of choice. This decision was not based on public need. It is based on bureaucrats who believe that they know better which energy is good.<br /><br />While some argue that we are oil dependent upon the Middle East and must find alternative energy sources, the argument does not hold true for electricity.<br />The United States is not dependent on any foreign country for coal, which produces electricity.<br /><br />Government regulations ensure three things: job loss, higher costs for energy and less competition in the marketplace.<br /><br />The death of the light bulb is just another chip at our freedom of choice. <br />Choice is the cornerstone of freedom. If the government had stayed out of the situation, the free market would have come up with a solution to address the high cost of energy and none of it would have included a mandate about what you were allowed or not allowed to buy.<br /><br />As the shelves become bare and stores have sold the last of the incandescent light bulbs, maybe then there will be a public outcry about government intrusion into our lives, our choices and the free market.<br /><br />RIP incandescent light bulb. You will be missed.<br /><br /><i>The writer is executive director of <a href="http://www.citizensforlimitedgov.org/">Citizens for Limited Government</a>, based in Bloomfield.</i><br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a> <br />14 points, referenced:<br />Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs. <br />&nbsp;<br />http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2014/01/bloomfield-opinion-incandescent-bulbs.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-8777082958872951206Wed, 15 Jan 2014 23:36:00 +00002014-01-16T14:12:20.675-05:00Manufacturer LobbyingUSA::All PostsUSA::Federal DemocratsUSA::Federal RepublicansUSA: Congress blocks Light Bulb Ban Funding<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a><br />As of a few minutes ago as this is written, the House of Representatives has easily passed the Omnibus spending package 359 to 67, partly thwarting the light Bulb ban (blocking oversight funding).<br /><br />January 14 <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/14/coal-projects-light-bulb-rules/4476103/">article</a> in <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/">USA Today</a> by Wendy Koch<br /><br />Excerpts:<br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"><center><big><b><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/14/coal-projects-light-bulb-rules/4476103/">Congress to bar enforcement of light-bulb phaseout</a></b></big></center>The $1.1 trillion spending bill, which covers all federal agencies<br />and is expected to pass the House and Senate this week, bars the<br />Department of Energy from spending money to enforce federal rules that<br />set tougher efficiency standards for light bulbs. Such a measure has<br />been attached to prior budget deals as well....<br /><br />This phaseout -- begun in January 2012 with the 100-watt, followed by<br />the 75-watt last year and the 60-watt and 40-watt this month -- has<br />angered many Americans who dislike newer bulbs partly because of their<br />higher up-front costs. House Republicans have tried but failed to stop<br />the phaseout so they've focused instead on de-funding its enforcement.<br /><br />In announcing the new budget deal, Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky., chairman<br />of the House Appropriations Committee, called the<br />light-bulb-efficiency standard "onerous" and welcomed the enforcement<br />ban. <br /></blockquote><br /><br />The issue is also <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/01/as-part-of-budget-deal-congress-blacks-light-bulb-efficiency-standards/">covered Jan 14 </a> on ARS Technica by John Timmer, and more widely repeated:<br />Unfortunately (!) he gets it wrong that the standards are repealed, rather than just the funding. <br />"As part of the new budget deal announced today, Congress has voted to eliminate standards for light bulb efficiency" <br />Perhaps that is why his story was widely reported on the internet.<br />It follows similar misunderstanding from previous budget blocks.<br /><br />Nevertheless with slight editing, his remarks were true:<br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">Recent Congresses have tried many times to repeal the standards, but these have all been blocked.<br />However, US budgets are often used as a vehicle to get policies enacted that couldn't pass otherwise, since having an actual budget is considered too valuable to hold up over relatively minor disputes. The repeal of the [funding of] these standards got attached to the budget and will be passed into law with it.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Following up on this, Washington Post today, Jan 15 in an <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/15/republicans-are-trying-one-last-time-to-save-traditional-lightbulbs-it-likely-wont-work">article</a>, asks...<br /><br />My emphases and [] added comment:<br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">....So what did Congress just do?<br /><br />Tucked inside the $1.012 trillion spending bill that Congress is considering, there's a provision that would bar funding for enforcement of the new lightbulb standards. (It's the same bill that Burgess was pushing last summer and which he added to a 2011 budget bill.) That means the Energy Department can't spend any money to prohibit the manufacture or import of old bulbs. <br /><br /><br />Will this enforcement provision make any difference?<br /><br />In some ways, no. All of the big manufacturers — General Electric, Philips, Sylvania — have been working for years to comply with the new standards, churning out new CFLs and halogens and LEDs. They're not expected to change course now.<br /><br />But some stores could, in theory, try to sell the older incandescents if they can get their hands on them. Opponents of the enforcement provision have worried that foreign companies will do exactly that. "Given that American manufacturers have committed to following the law regardless of whether or not it is enforced," said Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) last year, "<b>the only benefit of this ill-informed rider is to allow foreign manufacturers who may not feel a similar obligation—to import noncompliant light bulbs that will not only harm the investments made by U.S. companies, but place at risk the U.S. manufacturing jobs associated with making compliant bulbs</b>."<br />[presumably more likely re distributors rather than manufacturers]<br /><br />Whether that happens or not remains to be seen. It's still illegal to make or import old lightbulbs. The rider just makes it a little easier to get away with it in practice.<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Again, today:<br />Fox News 15 January 2014 unsigned <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/01/15/congress-offers-glimmer-hope-for-incandescent-light-bulb/">article</a><br /><br />My emphases added again:<br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"><center><big><b><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/01/15/congress-offers-glimmer-hope-for-incandescent-light-bulb/">Congress offers glimmer of hope for incandescent light bulb</a></b></big></center><br />The House is expected to vote on a $1.1 trillion spending bill that dictates the budgets for all federal agencies House Wednesday afternoon -- and it may be a desperately needed lifeline for the light bulb.<br /><br />The bill includes a prohibition on funding for “the Administration’s onerous ‘light bulb’ standard,” as Appropriations Committee chairman Hal Rogers (R., Ky) described it, which had sought to dramatically improve the energy efficiency of ordinary incandescent light bulbs but ultimately spelled the end of the road for the century-old technology.<br /><br />A portion of that 2007 law, which finally took effect on Jan. 1, mandated that manufacturers improve their light bulbs: 40W bulbs must draw just 10.5W, and 60W bulbs must draw no more than 11W. The result is the effectively a ban: Incandescents simply can’t keep up with those twisty compact fluorescent (CFL) and newer LED bulbs.<br /><br />But there's hope for those glass globes yet, however: Citing “a continued public desire for these products,” the Energy and Water Appropriations section of the bill would prohibit funds to implement or enforce the higher efficiency light bulb standards.<br /><br /><b>“None of the funds made available in this Act may be used … to implement or enforce the standards established by the tables contained in section 325(i)(1)(B) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act,”</b> reads section 322 of the bill.<br /><br />Critics call the funding ban a nuisance, but said it likely won’t stop the shift toward more energy-efficient bulbs, according to USA Today.<br /><br />"The market has marched forward despite this rider," Franz Matzner, associate director of government affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the paper. "The manufacturers have all been saying -- we're going to comply anyway."<br /><br />The demise of the incandescent bulb might come as a surprise to most Americans. A recent study by Lutron pointed out that fewer than 1 in 3 adults (just 28 percent) were aware of the planned phase out. A similar Socket Survey by Sylvania showed slightly more awareness -- 4 in 10 were aware of the phase out, it revealed.<br /><br />A quick check of Home Depot’s website indicates no shortage of incandescent bulbs; the company sells a six-pack for just under $10 -- and for the born hoarder, a pack of 288 for $118.<br /><br />In late December, Home Depot told FoxNews.com it had a six-month stockpile before the supplies ran out.<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br /><big><b>Comment</b></big> <br /><br />The amendment to the yearly Water and Energy bill was made in July 2013 by Texan Congressman Michael Burgess<br />and follows the <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2012/05/bright-burgess-bulb-bill-block-part-2.html">same manoeuvre</a> in 2012 and 2011.<br /><!-- http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/07/bright-burgess-bulb-coup.html --><br /><br />In practice the result is less clear, as local manufacturers are wary to base production on temporary if to date yearly<br />Unsurprisingly Texas Congressmen have been behind this, since <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/06/texas-to-allow-incandescent-light-bulbs.html">Gov Rick Perry legalized</a> regular incandescents in Texas which would otherwise be subject to federal opposition, like Arizona gun laws etc<br /><br /><br />Interesting comment made in the USA Today article above by NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), normally very much in favor of the ban as per their <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/">website</a>.<br /><br />With my emphasis<br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">"The market has marched forward despite this rider," says Franz Matzner, associate director of government affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. "The manufacturers have all been saying -- we're going to comply anyway."<br /><br /><b>Yet Matzner says the ban should be eliminated</b>, because it can create a loophole for illegal imports of the old incandescents and doesn't allow DOE to help U.S. companies meet the new standards. The phaseout doesn't stop stores from selling remaining stock of the old bulbs but bars them from making or importing them.<br /></blockquote><br />Note, his remark <br />"<i>the manufacturers have all been saying -- we're going to comply anyway</i>" is presumably in regard to the recent legal block.<br />Otherwise, as amply covered - and referenced - elsewhere here, major manufacturers jumped in with green activists to seek the ban to stop any small or new local outfits from making the easily made simple generic patent-expired popular cheap bulbs, profitable to the local manufactures on small overheads, but admittedly less profitable than patented complex expensive new CFL/LED alternatives for the majors - and they also wanted "political payback" for any such encouraged investments.<br />This of course also follows the exact same tactic by the exact same manufacturers to stop small companies from making incandescent bulbs lasting longer than 1000 hours, under the <a href="http://ceolas.net/#phoebuspol">Phoebus cartel</a>, also covered previously here.<br />Even as the pro-ban lobby themselves typically say, albeit with a different rationale in justifying government legislation:<br />"The manufacturers had decades to stop making them - but didn't".<br /><br />As always, the main point is not of manufacturers naturally seeking to make profit and to lobby for them, but rather that legislating politicians wrongfully hand them over...<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a> <br />14 points, referenced:<br />Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.<br />&nbsp;<br />http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2014/01/usa-congress-blocks-light-bulb-ban.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-2611411210334745937Mon, 13 Jan 2014 20:07:00 +00002014-01-16T14:08:56.011-05:00CanadaEnergy UseCanada Government Research on Light Bulb Heat Effect<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <br /><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a> <br />Canada heat from bulbs official study<br />This fits in with other Canadian, Finnish etc research <br />See <a href="http://ceolas.net/#li6x">http://ceolas.net/#li6x</a><br /><br /><i>The reduction in the lighting energy use was almost offset by the increase in the space-heating energy use</i><br /><br />The Canadian Centre for Housing Technology (CCHT) "<a href="http://www.cmhc.ca/odpub/pdf/65830.pdf">Benchmarking Home Energy Savings from Energy-Efficient Lighting</a>" research from 2008 and seemingly oddly ignored since by the Natural Resources Department behind the Canadian light bulb ban, <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/12/canada-light-bulb-ban-summary-of-how-it.html">as covered earlier</a>, in their switchover savings assumptions.<br />[The National Research Council (NRC) and Natural Resources Government Ministry (NRCan) jointly operate the Canadian Centre for Housing Technology (CCHT]<br /><br /><br />Excerpt<br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">With conventional lighting, between 89 to 96 per cent of lighting energy use is converted to heat and contributes to space heating as internal gains.<br />The few losses associated with lighting energy occurred mainly where lights were located close to windows....<br />The reduction in the lighting energy use was almost offset by the increase in the space-heating energy use<br /></blockquote><br />While cooling season (and any air conditioning cooling) as mentioned negate or work against savings at such times, the obvious point then is that incandescent use is voluntary and may be preferred for light quality reasons.<br />Of course in Canada and similar countries, when it's dark, it's often cold, even in spring and fall (autumn), whereby the heat benefit effect is greater overall anyway.<br /><br />Finally, <br />notice that this study <b>only takes the heat factor into account</b>.<br />There are <b>many more</b> reasons that savings don't hold up - whether as energy savings for society, or money savings for consumers.<br />See the <a href="http://ceolas.net/#li101x">lighting section</a> of http://ceolas.net for a full account, or the relevant summary points <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.ie/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#energy">from here</a> onwards, in "How Regulations are Wrongly Justified" on this blog, as also linked below from its start.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a> 14 points, referenced:<br />Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.<br />&nbsp;http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2014/01/canada-government-research-on-light.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-6249130880863712956Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:32:00 +00002014-01-16T14:16:36.939-05:00Campaigns/PetitionsCanadaUSA::All PostsUSA::Federal RepublicansUSA::State BillsUSA::TexasMore USA and Canada reaction against the Light Bulb Ban<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a><br />South Carolina <a href="http://jeffduncan.house.gov/">Congressman</a> Rep. <a href="http://www.jeffduncan.com/">Jeff Duncan</a> has launched a bill seeking to repeal the federal light bulb ban.<br />As seen on <a href="http;//ceolas.net/#bills">http;//ceolas.net/#bills</a> (updated last year, possibly more since) several bills both federally and in around a dozen individual states have been launched in the past - possibly a few more since the last of those mentioned bills. It should be said that many seem speculative to please a local constituency base, but for all that of course a welcome marker of opinion.<br />To my knowledge only Texas have actually <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/06/texas-to-allow-incandescent-light-bulbs.html">legalized them</a> under Gov Perry, although Arizona and South Carolina have been close under likewise Republican Parliaments and Governorships (Governors Brewer and Haley). The practical value of state versus federal law is always in question, and depends on sympathetic local Attorney-Generals, as with Arizona gun laws, California (and Colorado) marijuana laws etc, and the willingness and capability of federal oversight.<br />South Carolina has, or had, independent small incandescent manufacturing, whether or not that played a part in this case.<br /><br />Rep Jeff Duncan's bill can be seen here, on a <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3818/text">Govtrack page</a><br /><br /><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y_jW98LDYKw/UtQjvwj19eI/AAAAAAAADTo/U2cIYlYN9AM/s1600/SC_Rep_Jeff_Duncan_160_+160.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-y_jW98LDYKw/UtQjvwj19eI/AAAAAAAADTo/U2cIYlYN9AM/s130/SC_Rep_Jeff_Duncan_160_+160.jpg" /></a>Excerpt, main points<br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">House of Representatives US Congress<br />January 8, 2014<br />Mr. Duncan of South Carolina introduced the following bill<br />H. R. 3818<br />This Act may be cited as the "Thomas Edison BULB Act".<br />Lighting energy efficiency<br />Subtitle B of title III of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–140) is repealed.<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Also some further reaction in Canada...<br />which, as <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/12/o-canada-how-aligning-to-us-law-will.html">covered before</a>, is adopting USA law for North American trade reasons.<br />Apart from the usual "people are stocking up" kind of articles also seen in the USA, some more petitions have been launched against the ban, for example on <a href="http://www.thepetitionsite.com/970/390/663/repeal-the-ban-on-incandescent-light-bulbs-in-canada/">thepetitionsite.com</a> and on <a href="http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/stop-the-canadian-government-from-banning-incandescent-lightbulbs-cfls-pose-a-much-higher-risk-to-canadians-health-and-safety-and-environment-which-far-outweigh-energy-savings-do-not-take-away-our-right-to-choose-to-not-take-the-risk">change.org</a>, also as seen Canadians signing here, on <a href="http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/stop-the-light-bulb-ban">moveon.org</a>.<br />As seen, they seem as much directed against fluorescents as in saving incandescents as such, and understandably has not had as much publicity and reaction as other efforts, notably Ontario Federal MP <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/12/canadian-mp-cheryl-gallants-campaign-to.html">Cheryl Gallant's campaign</a> as per previous post. <br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a><br />14 points, referenced: <br />Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.<br />&nbsp;http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2014/01/more-usa-and-canada-reaction-against.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-4988329169926728085Wed, 08 Jan 2014 20:48:00 +00002014-01-09T10:15:25.010-05:00Osram/SylvaniaSurveysUSA::All Posts"Most Americans against the Light Bulb Ban"<!-- http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2014/72_say_their_light_bulbs_are_none_of_the_feds_business http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2009/72_don_t_want_feds_changing_their_light_bulbs http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2014/60_still_oppose_government_s_light_bulb_ban http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/questions/january_2014/questions_light_bulb_ban_january_2_3_2013 <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <br /><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a><br />January 8 update, new ending. [Original post also January 8] <br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2014/60_still_oppose_government_s_light_bulb_ban">Rasmussen Survey</a>, conducted January 2-3 and as reported January 7 2014<br /><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">Only one-in-four Americans support the ban on conventional 40- and 60-watt light bulbs in the United States that went into effect January 1, and the same number say they or someone they know stocked up on the old bulbs beforehand.<br /><br />A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 60% of American Adults still oppose the ban on traditional light bulbs ordered by the federal government in the name of improved energy efficiency. That's down only slightly from 67% in July 2011 when the government first announced the new regulations. Twenty-five percent (25%) now support the light bulb ban, up from 20% two-and-a-half years ago. Fifteen percent (15%) remain undecided. <br /><br /><i>The national survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on January 2-3, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.</i><br /></blockquote><br /><br />The <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/questions/january_2014/questions_light_bulb_ban_january_2_3_2013">questions asked</a>...<br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">National Survey of 1,000 Adults Conducted January 2-3, 2014 By Rasmussen Reports<br /><br />1* How closely have you followed recent news stories about changes in the manufacturing of light bulbs?<br /><br />2* While effectively banning the sale of traditional light bulbs, a new law will allow only more expensive light bulbs that are expected to last longer and be more energy efficient. Should the sale of traditional light bulbs be banned?<br /><br />3* The Energy Department says that the new light bulbs will cost more up front but save money in the long run. How likely is it that the new light bulbs will save money in the long run?<br /><br />4* Is it the government’s job to tell Americans what kind of light bulb to use?<br /><br />5* Suppose the new light bulbs don’t work so well and end up costing more money in the long run. How likely is it that the government will then allow the sale of traditional light bulbs?<br /><br />6* Will the new fluorescent or halogen bulbs be good for the environment, bad for the environment or will it they have no impact on the environment?<br /><br />7* Have you or anyone you know bought large quantities of traditional bulbs to use once they are no longer available in stores?<br /><br />8* Are you buying the new energy efficient bulbs because you want to or because traditional light bulbs are no longer available?<br /><br />9* Who would do a better job of providing quality products for consumers-- government planners and managers or companies hoping to make a profit?<br /><br /><i>NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence</i><br /></blockquote><br /><br />Today, January 8 2014 sees a new press release<br /><br /><a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2014/72_say_their_light_bulbs_are_none_of_the_feds_business">January 8, 2014</a>:<br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">Just 18% of American Adults believe it is the government’s job to tell people in this country what kind of light bulb to use. Seventy-two percent (72%) disagree and feel it is not the government’s job to make that call. Ten percent (10%) are not sure.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Which happens to be identical to 2009<br /><br /><a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2009/72_don_t_want_feds_changing_their_light_bulbs">Rasmussen July 2009</a>:<br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">Just 18% of American Adults believe it is the government’s job to tell people in this country what kind of light bulb to use. Seventy-two percent (72%) disagree and feel it is not the government’s job to make that call. Ten percent (10%) are not sure.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />This is presumably an unintentional mistake? ;-)<br />The comparative <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2014/60_still_oppose_government_s_light_bulb_ban">January 7, 2014</a> press release, as per above, edited to fit in<br /><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">Twenty-five percent (25%) support the light bulb ban....60% of American Adults still oppose...Fifteen percent (15%) remain undecided.<br /></blockquote><br />For the sake of completion, the <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2011/67_oppose_upcoming_ban_on_traditional_light_bulbs">July 2011 survey</a><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">Just 20% of adults think the sale of traditional light bulbs should be banned. Sixty-seven percent (67%) oppose such a ban. Thirteen percent (13%) are undecided.<br /></blockquote>[Thank you to <a href="http://www.politicalnewsnow.com/">MB Snow</a>, since retired, for the 2011 information, <a href="https://ladylibertytoday.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/67-oppose-upcoming-%E2%80%98ban%E2%80%99-on-traditional-light-bulbs-rasmussen-reports%E2%84%A2/">The Snow Report</a>, which has more about that survey]<br /><br /><br /><br /><big><b>Comment</b></big><br /><br />Lies, damn lies, and statistics...<br />There are other surveys in the past, as by USA Today (more below), purporting to show "How people welcome regulations and the great new light bulbs".<br /><br />There are 2 main points here.<br /><br />Firstly, how the questions are asked <br />(eg "are you happy about the great new bulbs" versus "should government tell you what light bulb to buy" kind of juxtapositions, with nuances in between).<br /><br />Secondly, and more importantly, that bans are wrong either way.<br />Why?<br /><b>New bulbs are desirable - No point banning old bulbs<br />New bulbs are not desirable - No point banning old bulbs</b><br /><br />If new bulbs are "so great and welcome", presumably they would be bought voluntarily, and there is little savings in not allowing the presumably low sales of alternatives for those who still want them.<br />Conversely it's hardly great either, of course, to ban a more desirable choice.<br />[More cynically, one might also ask, if people really think the "alternatives are so great", why haven't they <b>already</b> bought them then? Standard light bulbs remain the most popular choice.]<br /><br />Overall,<br />as the more detailed surveys also show, people certainly have bought new kinds of bulbs.<br />They just don't want <b>all</b> their light bulbs to be non-incandescent (and as per other posts, halogen replacement incandescents are also legislated to be banned in North America, Europe and Australia on tier 2 regulations).<br /><b>Switch all your bulbs and save money</b>, is like saying<br /><b>Eat only bananas, and save money</b>.<br /><br />See the issues around these kind of surveys, <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#like">as already summarized</a> in the "How Regulations are Wrongly Justified" 14 points rundown.<br /><br /><br /><br />To illustrate some of this:<br /><br />The <a href="http://usatoday.com/">USA Today</a> paper has in the past put out <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/02/poll-americans-ok-newer-light-bulbs/1#.Us2eKFOa-GU">survey results</a> showing how "Americans welcome the regulations" and indeed new light bulbs themselves.<br /><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">Nearly three of four U.S. adults, or 71%, say they <b>have replaced standard light bulbs</b> in their home over the past few years with compact fluorescent lamps or LEDs (light emitting diodes) and 84% say they are "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the alternatives<br /></blockquote><br />.... which incidentally applies to <b>switching one</b> or more bulbs, not a total switchover - again statistical manipulation!<br />As it happens, <b>the same article author</b> had <a href="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2011-02-07-lightbulbs_N.htm">10 days earlier</a> pointed out<br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">Types of lightbulbs consumers have in their homes: <br /><b>Incandescents 82%</b> <br />Compact fluorescent 72%<br />Halogen 39% <br />Light emitting diodes 27% <br />Source: Sylvania Socket Survey<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br />As for the more recent 2013 <a href="https://www.sylvania.com/en-us/tools-and-resources/surveys/Pages/socket-survey.aspx">Sylvania socket survey</a>, it finds that <br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">65 percent of Americans plan to switch to more energy-efficient lighting technologies, as a result of federally mandated legislation that is increasing efficiency standards &nbsp; &nbsp; [<i>well, they hardly have a choice!</i>]<br />More than half (59%) of consumers are excited about the phase out, as it will help Americans use more energy efficient light bulbs. &nbsp; &nbsp; [<i>why - who was stopping them using them?</i>]<br /></blockquote><br />Conversely, it also says<br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">30 percent of consumers say that they plan to buy a lot of traditional light bulbs where still available and will continue using them. This is a sharp increase from the 2012 Socket Survey which showed just 16 percent said that they plan to stockpile bulbs.<br /></blockquote><br />Given what was said about different lighting having different advantages, this is hardly surprising, the contradiction is only apparent.<br />Yet, most US media seem unable to make balanced appropriate remarks:<br />"Liberal/Eco" side focusing on the "welcome" bit, "Republican/Conservative" side on the "stockpiling" bit, others seemingly "perplexed" at the findings, which are therefore not really contradictory at all.<br /><br />It's a bit tiring to be an assumed retrograde lover of obsolescent technology.<br />It seems <b>incredibly</b> hard for some to understand that being against a ban does not necessitate being against other forms of lighting. <br />Of course, fluorescent bulbs or LEDs have disadvantages too, but disadvantages are also naturally highlighted in objections, if one is <b>forced</b> to use such lighting where incandescents would have been better (and yes it is a "ban" on incandescents including halogens, for reasons covered at length elsewhere, including tier 2 US/EU etc law references).<br />All lighting has different advantages for different uses.<br />Politicians that have something in their heads that can be likened to a brain might understand this. Then again, they might not.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a> <br />14 points, referenced: <br />Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.<br />&nbsp;http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2014/01/most-americans-against-light-bulb-ban.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-2156802286340157214Tue, 07 Jan 2014 19:07:00 +00002014-01-09T10:15:07.067-05:00GEHoward BrandstonManufacturer LobbyingOsram/SylvaniaPhilipsUSA::All PostsThe Odd Green Crony Capitalist Coalition Behind Banning Bulbs<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="http://www.richsoil.com/CFL-fluorescent-light-bulbs.jsp">Paul Wheaton</a></small></small> <blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a> <br /><br />January 7 <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2014/01/07/lights-out-for-americas-favorite-light-b">article</a> by Shawn Regan, from <a href="http://reason.com">Reason.Com</a><br />Good on the industrial policy behind the ban<br /><br /><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S1Tv-fKrrjg/Usw9fz_CI9I/AAAAAAAADTU/SlaZ8OULg1E/s1600/incandescent-light-bulb_250_415.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S1Tv-fKrrjg/Usw9fz_CI9I/AAAAAAAADTU/SlaZ8OULg1E/s300/incandescent-light-bulb_250_415.jpg" /></a><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"><center><big><b><a href="http://reason.com/archives/2014/01/07/lights-out-for-americas-favorite-light-b">Lights Out For America’s Favorite Light Bulb</a></b></big></center><br />Happy New Year, America! Your favorite light bulb is now illegal.<br /><br />Well, sort of. As of January 1, U.S. businesses can no longer manufacture or import “<a href="http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/61">general service</a>” incandescent bulbs—the most popular light bulbs in America. Consumers can still buy and use them while supplies last, but the remaining inventory won’t be around for long. Home Depot <a href="http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2013/12/31/retailers-brace-for-change-ahead-incandescent-bulb-ban/">says</a> it will be out of the bulbs within six months. Some consumers have started to stockpile.<br /><br />It’s all part of the energy efficiency standards mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/pdf/PLAW-110publ140.pdf">The law</a> already killed off the 100-watt incandescent bulb in 2012, followed by the 75-watt bulb in 2013. Now, in the final step of the phaseout, the minimum efficiency standards have effectively banned the ubiquitous 40- and 60- watt light bulbs.<br /><br />When industry and environmental groups claim that a regulation will solve all problems, consumers beware. It’s probably green cronyism in disguise.<br /><br />The ban is crony capitalism in its most seductive form — when it’s disguised as green.<br /><br />Major light bulb manufacturers supported the ban from the outset.<br />The profit margin on old-style bulbs was pitifully low, and consumers just weren’t buying the higher-margin efficiency bulbs. New standards were needed, a lobbyist for the National Electrical Manufacturing Association <a href="http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110shrg39385/html/CHRG-110shrg39385.htm">told Congress in 2007</a>, “in order to further educate consumers on the benefits of energy-efficient products.”<br /><br />So Philips Electronics and other manufacturers joined with environmental groups to push for tighter lighting standards.<br />As the New York Times Magazine <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/magazine/bulb-in-bulb-out.html?_r=3&ref=general&src=me&pagewanted=all&">explained in 2011</a>, “Philips told its environmental allies it was well positioned to capitalize on the transition to new technologies and wanted to get ahead of an efficiency movement that was gaining momentum abroad and in states like California.” After much negotiation, a classic “<a href="http://reason.com/reasontv/2010/06/21/bootleggers-and-baptists-a-con">bootleggers-and-Baptists</a>” coalition was born. Industry and environmental groups agreed to endorse legislation to increase lighting efficiency by 25 to 30 percent.<br /><br />Incandescent light bulbs, we’re told, are vastly inferior to the newfangled alternatives available today.<br />The compact fluorescents lamps (CFLs), LEDs, and halogen bulbs are an apparent no-brainer: They last longer and convert much more of their energy into light rather than heat, all while cutting back on your energy bill. (So, of course, the government must stop you from ever making the mistake of choosing the traditional bulbs.)<br /><br />Except many consumers aren’t buying it.<br />The EPA <a href="http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/lighting/cfls/downloads/EISA_Backgrounder_FINAL_4-11_EPA.pdf">estimates </a>that, of the four billion light-bulb sockets in United States, more than three billion still hold incandescent bulbs. “By 2014, the traditional incandescent light bulbs… will be virtually obsolete,” <a href="http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democratic-news?ID=4d0ecd13-a8fe-4ab9-be25-71f293821528">claimed</a> a 2007 press release from former Sen. Jeff Bingaman, the ban’s original sponsor. But according to the <a href="http://www.nema.org/news/Pages/Incandescent-Lamp-Shipments-Wane-During-Second-Quarter.aspx">latest industry data</a>, incandescents still make up nearly 65 percent of all U.S. light-bulb shipments.<br /><br />Many consumers are turned off by the higher upfront costs of the alternatives.<br />A single 40-watt LED bulb costs <a href="http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2013/12/31/retailers-brace-for-change-ahead-incandescent-bulb-ban/">$7.50 or more</a>, while a traditional incandescent bulb goes for around 40 cents. Some are finding that the CFLs <a href="http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/conservation/are-compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs-really-cheaper-over-time/2">don’t last nearly as long</a> as their supporters claim—especially if they are switched on and off frequently, or if they are attached to a dimmer switch.<br /><br />The list of complaints about the “efficient” bulbs goes on:<br />They are often slow to respond, sensitive to high temperatures, and can cast a harsh and unattractive tone. CFLs also contain a small amount of mercury, which requires <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl-0">extensive and careful cleanup</a> when a bulb breaks.<br /><br />And they may not be saving us much energy after all.<br />The typical U.S. home uses <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/29/AR2010092906585.html?sid=ST2010092907824">no less energy per capita</a> than it did in the 1970s, despite an onslaught of efficiency standards for everything from refrigerators and televisions to the amount of power consumed when appliances are in “standby mode.” The money saved in the long run by using these appliances is often spent on even more power-sucking gadgets. And if light bulbs cost less to use, why not just leave the lights on longer?<br /><br />The light-bulb ban is an example of how political coalitions are formed to force regulations on the general public that benefit a few large producers.<br />A <a href="https://assets.sylvania.com/assets/Documents/Socket%20Survey%206%200%202013%20web.ace8e42b-1aa1-4d10-897c-78e40ff72ccb.pdf">recent survey</a> found that six out of every ten Americans are still in the dark about the latest bulb ban. Meanwhile, the dimwitted light-bulb policy just became the law of the land. <br />The lesson here is straightforward: When industry and environmental groups claim that a regulation will solve all problems, consumers beware. It’s probably green cronyism in disguise. <br /><br /><i>Shawn Regan is a research fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center (<a href="http://perc.org">PERC</a>), a nonprofit research institute in Bozeman, Montana, dedicated to improving environmental quality through property rights and markets.</i><br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br />This complements a January 1 <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/industry-not-environmentalists-killed-incandescent-bulbs/article/2541430">article</a> by Tim Carney at the <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/">Washington Examiner</a>.<br />Tim Carney has for several years covered the industrial policy behind the USA ban.<br /><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"><center><big><b><a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/industry-not-environmentalists-killed-incandescent-bulbs/article/2541430">Industry, not environmentalists, killed traditional bulbs</a></b></big></center><br />Say goodbye to the regular light bulb this New Year.<br /><br />For more than a century, the traditional incandescent bulb was the symbol of American innovation. Starting Jan. 1, the famous bulb is illegal to manufacture in the U.S., and it has become a fitting symbol for the collusion of big business and big government.<br /><br />The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007">2007 Energy Bill</a>, a stew of regulations and subsidies, set mandatory efficiency standards for most light bulbs. Any bulbs that couldn't produce a given brightness at the specified energy input would be illegal. That meant the 25-cent bulbs most Americans used in nearly every socket of their home would be outlawed.<br /><br />People often assume green regulations like this represent the triumph of environmental activists trying to save the planet. That’s rarely the case, and it wasn't here. Light bulb manufacturers whole-heartedly supported the efficiency standards. General Electric, Sylvania and Philips — the three companies that dominated the bulb industry — all backed the 2007 rule, while opposing proposals to explicitly outlaw incandescent technology (thus leaving the door open for high-efficiency incandescents).<br /><br />This wasn't a case of an industry getting on board with an inevitable regulation in order to tweak it. The lighting industry was the main reason the legislation was moving. As the New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/magazine/bulb-in-bulb-out.html">reported in 2011</a>, “Philips formed a coalition with environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council to push for higher standards.”<br /><br />Industry support for the regulations struck lawmakers and journalists as a ringing endorsement of the regulations. Republican Congressmen <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/section/fred-upton">Fred Upton</a>, who has since flip-flopped and attacked the regulations, cosponsored the light bulb provision in 2007. His excuse, according to conservatives I spoke to: It couldn't be that bad if the industry supported it.<br /><br />Liberals used this very argument to ridicule Republicans' 2011 efforts to repeal the law. Democratic congressman <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/section/steny-hoyer">Steny Hoyer</a> defended the rule by saying, “The standards are supported by the lightbulb industry.”<br /><br /><a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/about/staff/romm-joseph/bio/">Joe Romm</a> at the Center for American Progress pinned repeal efforts on the “extremist Tea Party wing of the party, which opposes all government standards, even ones that the lightbulb industry itself wants.”<br />That “even” signifies that the industry’s support indicates consensus. Instead, it signifies how consumers lose.<br /><br />Competitive markets with low costs of entry have a characteristic that consumers love and businesses lament: very low profit margins. GE, Philips and Sylvania dominated the U.S. market in incandescents, but they couldn’t convert that dominance into price hikes. Because of light bulb’s low material and manufacturing costs, any big climb in prices would have invited new competitors to undercut the giants — and that new competitor would probably have won a distribution deal with Wal-Mart.<br /><br />So, simply the threat of competition kept profit margins low on the traditional light bulb — that's the magic of capitalism. GE and Sylvania searched for higher profits by improving the bulb — think of the GE Soft White bulb. These companies, with their giant research budgets, made advances with halogen, LED and fluorescent technologies, and even high-efficiency incandescents. They sold these bulbs at a much higher prices — but they couldn’t get many customers to buy them for those high prices. That's the hard part about capitalism — consumers, not manufacturers, get to demand what something is worth.<br /><br />Capitalism ruining their party, the bulb-makers turned to government. Philips teamed up with NRDC. GE leaned on its huge lobbying army — the largest in the nation — and soon they were able to ban the low-profit-margin bulbs.<br /><br />The high-tech, high-cost, high-margin bulbs have advantages: They live longer and use much less electricity. In the long run, this can save people money. But depending on your circumstances, these gains might be mitigated or eradicated.<br /><br />The current replacement for traditional bulbs are compact fluorescents (those curly bulbs). They give off UV rays, contain mercury gas, take a while to get bright and don’t last any longer than regular bulbs if you flip them on and off a lot.<br /><br />Newer technologies, like LED bulbs, are better than CFLs, and they supposedly last 20 years. But they cost even more. In your office building, they probably make sense. In your house? Well they won't last two decades in a house full of kids who wrestle with the dog and throw footballs around the living room (maybe Congress should ban domestic wrestling and passing).<br /><br />There is a middle ground between everyone using traditional bulbs and traditional bulbs being illegal. It's called free choice: Let people choose if they want more efficient and expensive bulbs. Maybe they'll chose LEDs for some purposes and cheap bulbs for others.<br /><br />But consumer choice is no good either for nanny-staters or companies seeking high profit margins.<br /><br />Technologies often run the course from breakthrough innovation to obsolete. Think of the 8-track, the Model T or Kodachrome film. But the market didn’t kill the traditional light bulb. Government did it, at the request of big business.<br /><br /><i>Timothy P. Carney, The Washington Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com His column appears Sunday and Wednesday on <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com">washingtonexaminer.com</a>.</i><br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Comment</b><br /><br />A lot more on the industrial policy behind the banning of light bulbs in the USA, Europe and elsewhere: <a href="http://ceolas.net/#li1ax">http://ceolas.net/#li1ax</a><br />Specifically in an American context, also the "<a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/12/light-bulb-testimonial.html">I Light Bulb</a>" eBook by M.P. Leahy and Howard Brandston.<br />Howard Brandston, a well known New York lighting designer, was involved from the start in recurrent Senate hearings, and has covered the strange workings of the NEMA sub-committee (Philips, GE, Osram/Sylvania) in seeking the USA 2007 ban and indeed in their seeking to uphold it through 2011 (and no doubt 2014) reviews and bill attempts at tightening legislation further. His specific webpage and campaign against the regulations: <a href="http://www.concerninglight.com/commentary.html">http://www.concerninglight.com/commentary.html</a><br /><br />The major manufacturers not unnaturally want to sell more profitable patented expensive alternative bulbs, and feel that any obstruction would be reneging on "promises" by politicians to smooth the way for them through initial consultation and legislation as per 2007 US law, 2008 Canada law, or 2009 Australia and EU laws.<br />Philips, GE, Osram/Sylvania cooperated to ensure incandescents did not have more than 1000 hour lifespan (the <a href="http://ceolas.net/#phoebuspol">Phoebus cartel</a>) and then cooperated to get rid of them altogether. Slam-Dunk.<br /><br /><br /><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ta2ozf_uJJ8?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" width="580" height="350" ></iframe><br /><small style="float: right; padding-right: 60px;"><a href="http://www.richsoil.com/CFL-fluorescent-light-bulbs.jsp">Paul Wheaton</a></small><br /><br />Note the irony: <br />Any outsider would of course consider it unusual that manufacturers would voluntarily seek to legally limit what they are allowed to make, and to welcome such laws once they are made.<br />The manufacturers are therefore repeatedly lauded by perennially clueless journalists for their "great green conscience", and of course happily strengthen such an image in their press releases.<br /><br />Somewhat more perceptive observers remark that the manufacturers could have voluntarily stopped making the bulbs, just like they stop making much else in the name of progress - but that would therefore have allowed small and new and local manufacturers to happily and profitably make the patent expired generic cheap bulbs, without global distributive overheads or commitments to expensive alternatives.<br /><br />In turn misunderstanding the process, "progressive green" people claim that legislation was necessary or the manufacturers would "never" have stopped making the old bulbs.<br />Apart from ignoring that incandescent lighting might have light quality and other advantages beyond crass economic or energy use reasoning (and the supposed savings not being there anyway as per other argumentation), this ignores what "progress" is: and it is hardly expensively imitative replacement clones of incandescent bulbs.<br />Increased - not reduced - competition drives progress, and it is conveniently forgotten that CFLs and LED bulbs were invented in the presence - not the absence - of incandescent competition, moreover that new inventions can always be helped to market albeit without continuing subsidies, allowing the best alternatives to flourish, with "expensive to buy but cheap in the long run" advantages highlighted by imaginative advertising, as is done for other products.<br /><br />Overall it is of course odd to ban popular safe products just to reduce electricity consumption.<br />There are plenty of ways to reduce say coal use or emission or electricity, whether by legislation or taxation, and plenty of informative possibilities to say encourage lighting to be switched off rather than to ban a particular choice of it.<br /><br />There is nothing but idiocy behind this banning of light bulbs.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a><br />14 points, referenced: <br />Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.<br />&nbsp;<br />http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-odd-green-crony-capitalist.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-2160066820906174435Thu, 02 Jan 2014 19:21:00 +00002014-01-06T14:16:39.959-05:00CanadaDocumentaries/VideosGreenwashingLampsRough Service BulbsSmall ManufacturersUSA::All PostsUSA::Federal RepublicansUSA::State BillsUSA::TexasUSA and Canada Light Bulb Ban: Now and in the Future<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a> Updates Jan 3 <br /><br />Given the entry into force January 1 of the US ban on most remaining incandescent light bulbs for general service use, a review of the law as it stands and future implications. <br />Note that the same will apply to Canada, adopting the same regulations as USA in a tighter timeframe: Official link, <a href="http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/regulations-codes-standards/12342">Canada regulations</a>.<br /><br /><br />"Beyond 2014, while also allowing LEDs, the new rule for general household lighting of 45 lumens per Watt happens to be exactly that of fluorescent 'energy saving' bulbs..."<br /><br /><br /><center><img width="400" style="padding:0px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Dz5yVG4PDlE/TuiNYXOvFCI/AAAAAAAAAO0/E_Av0cikwx8/s1600/UncleSamCFL_280_220.jpg" alt="" /><br /><small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">&nbsp;<a href="http://thegaryartgood.blogspot.com/">Gary Locke</a></small></small></center><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><center>Edited and somewhat updated sections of the accompanying website,<br /><a href="http://ceolas.net/#li01inx">http://ceolas.net/#li01inx</a> "What is Banned and When"</center><br /><br /><table width=600 style="text-align: center; padding:6px; font-weight:bold; background:white;" ><tr valign=top style="background:yellow;" > <th>Lumens <th> old Watts <th> new Watts <th> Min Life <th> min CRI <th> Date Start<br /><tr valign=top><td>1490-2600 <td> 100 <td> 72 <td> 1,000 hrs <td> 80 <td>1/1/2012 <br /><tr valign=top><td> 1050-1489 <td> 75 <td>53<td>1,000 hrs<td>80<td>1/1/2013 <br /><tr> <td>750-1049<td>60 <td>43 <td>1,000 hrs <td> 80 <td>1/1/2014 <br /><tr><td> 310-749 <td> 40 <td> 29 <td>1,000 hrs<td>80 <td>1/1/2014</tr></table><br /><br />CANADA: Same rules, 100 + 75W start 1 Jan 2014, 60 + 40W bulbs 31 Dec 2014.<br />January 1 2015 therefore sees Canada "in phase" with US regulations.<br /><br />From the legislation, starting 2012 for General Service Incandescent Light Bulbs:<br />A phase-out based on the lumen (brightness) rating of the bulbs, rather than their wattage.<br />Standard bright 100 Watt equivalent household light bulbs can therefore be at most 72 Watts equivalent from January 2012, and so on with increasing stringency.<br />There are also lifespan and CRI (color rendering index) provisions. The coloring rendering index measures how accurately colors are shown.<br /><br /><br />Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007/Title III/Subtitle B/Section 321<br /><b><i>"The Secretary of Energy shall report to Congress on the time frame for commercialization of lighting to replace incandescent and halogen incandescent lamp technology"</i></b><br /><br />2 tiers, based on 2012-2014 and 2014-2017, backstop rule extending to 2020.<br />A third tier is planned, provisionally set for 2020: "DOE [the Department of Energy] is also required under the EISA 2007 to initiate a rulemaking in 2020 to determine whether the standards in effect for general service incandescent lamps should be increased" as per the DOE fact sheet linked below. The understanding since then is that this will likely be brought forward. <br />Aim: to reduce the allowed wattage for incandescent bulbs by 28 percent starting in 2012, becoming a 67 percent reduction by 2020 at the latest, in accordance with the defined annual review procedures.<br />Should the review procedures not have produced a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt by January 1, 2017, that sees a backstop final rule come into force:<br />Effective January 1, 2020, the Secretary shall prohibit the sale of such general service lamps that do not by then meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt.<br /><br />`(i) The term 'general service incandescent lamp' means a standard incandescent or halogen type lamp that— <br />`(I) is intended for general service applications;<br />`(II) has a medium screw base;<br />`(III) has a lumen range of not less than 310 lumens and not more than 2,600 lumens; and<br />`(IV) is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 110 and 130 volts.<br /><br />Prohibited act... for any manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler to distribute in commerce an adapter that—<br />`(A) is designed to allow an incandescent lamp that does not have a medium screw base to be installed into a fixture or lampholder with a medium screw base socket; and<br />`(B) is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 110 and 130 volts.'<br />[In short, to stop people from getting what they want, manufacturers and sellers are not allowed to provide adapters that allow other incandescent lamps to use medium screw base 110-130 volt sockets]<br /><br /><br />List of exceptions: Appliance lamps, Black light lamps, Bug lamps, Colored lamps, Infrared lamps, Left-hand thread lamps, Marine lamps, Marine’s signal service lamps, Mine service lamps, Plant light lamps, Reflector lamps, Rough service lamps, Shatter-resistant lamps (including shatter-proof and shatter-protected), Sign service lamps, Silver bowl lamps, Showcase lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, Traffic signal lamps, Vibration service lamps, G shape lamps with a diameter of 5” or more, T shape lamps that use no more than 40W or are longer than 10”, and all B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G-30, M-14, or S lamps of 40W or less. <br /><br />Sales will be monitored to avoid substitution effects - see below.<br />These will also be reduced on mentioned planned tier 3 regulation by 2020.<br /><br /><br />Lighting <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007/Title_III/Subtitle_B#SEC._321._EFFICIENT_LIGHT_BULBS.">section 321</a> of <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf">Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007</a> (pdf)<br />Application: <a href="http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/">DOE appliance standards homepage</a>, <a href="http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/lighting_legislation_fact_sheet_03_13_08.pdf">details</a> (pdf), <a href="http://lightingfacts.com/Library/Content/EISA">details</a> with list of exceptions.<br />Industry <a href="http://www.americanlightingassoc.com/Lighting-Fundamentals/Light-Sources-Light-Bulbs/New-Incandescent-Light-Bulb-Requirements.aspx">info</a> page: This also includes more information on the law for "modified spectrum" lamp types (less energy efficient ordinary bulbs that have tinting to make the light more white in color).<br />For extensive information 2012-2014 including reflector lamps etc, with illustrations:<br />0sram-Sylvania <a href="http://ceolas.net/Docs/Osram_Sylvania_rules_USA_Ban.pdf">document</a> (pdf)<br /><br />Greenwashing Lamps good <a href="http://greenwashinglamps.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/u-s-light-bulb-ban-bad-idea/">post about the US ban</a><br />Also the past posts on the specifications <a href="http://greenwashinglamps.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/us-energy-bill/">here</a>, with a 2012-2014 update <a href="http://greenwashinglamps.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/qa-about-the-u-s-incandescent-ban/">here</a>.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Points regarding the Legislation</b><br /><br /><b>General</b><br />The manufacture and import - but not the sale itself - of general service incandescent lighting is progressively restricted, beginning with ordinary 100 W bulbs.<br />So the sale of existing stock of the targeted bulbs will still be allowed.<br />Bulbs equivalent to 25W and below, of 150-200W, and of higher wattages, are also not affected, subject to sales monitoring as with specialist bulbs.<br /><br /><br /><b>Packaging</b><br />Additionally, the January 1 2012 packaging requirement changed the way light bulbs are referred to. <br />Instead of buying a "72 watt light bulb," one might purchase a "1500 lumens" light bulb.<br />See the <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2012/01/good-bright-and-dim.html">blog post on packaging and labeling</a> in the USA and the EU.<br /><br /><br /><b>Halogen Replacements</b><br />The Halogen etc incandescent general service mains voltage replacements, which the initial ban was geared to allow via the typical "72 Watt" replacements for 100 W bulbs (etc) found in stores,<br />will therefore also be banned sometime after 2014. They are typically 20-25 lumen per Watt, way below 45 lumen per Watt equating to fluorescent bulbs. LEDs also pass the standard.<br />If the review process beginning in 2014 does not ban Halogen replacements by 2017, the backstop final rule that kicks in will ensure a ban by 2020.<br /><br />Of course, legislation can be overturned. <br />But any legal change has to pass both Houses of Congress and get the President's signature. Hardly anytime soon.<br />Rather, the Obama administration with Senate Democrat cooperation has sought to tighten rather than relax energy efficiency regulations, including on lighting.<br /><br />Besides, Halogens are themselves still different and more complex than ordinary simple incandescents, and much more expensive for marginal savings, so not popular either with politicians (no halogen switchover programs!) or with consumers in a free choice.<br />Halogen or other incandescent development has moreover been ruled out by major manufacturers, as per meeting with the EU (European) Commission November 25 last.<br /><br /><br /><b>CRI</b><br />About the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index">color rendering index</a> (CRI):<br />This, more precisely is "the ability of a light source to reproduce the colors of various objects faithfully in comparison with an ideal or natural light source".<br />According to the legislation, CFL, LED, or incandescent light sources "used to satisfy lighting applications traditionally served by general service incandescent lamps" must as seen have a minimum CRI rating of 80.<br />Incandescents, in performing as "black body radiators" typically have a perfect or near perfect 100 rating (unlike CFLs or LEDs), so the lesser 80 requirement, if followed by manufacturers, degrades current performance. In other words, yet another issue when it comes to targeting this technology.<br />Light sources with a high CRI are also desirable in color-critical applications such as photography and cinematography, and even when fluorescent lamps or LEDs have high CRI ratings, their spiky emission spectra do not correlate well with color rendering quality in practice, so that the photography and movie-making issues remain.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Ban Anomaly</b><br />It's a funny world and a funny US Congress. <br />Notice the anomaly that 75 W "dim" bulbs are allowed, but a 75 W "bright" bulb is effectively banned!<br />In other words, as the official sources confirm, incandescent bulbs are being banned on the basis of their "lumen" brightness - not on their energy use, bright bulbs being banned first.<br />So you can still, for a while, buy a 100W incandescent bulb if it's dim enough, which might, at least at first, seem an attractive alternative even to regular incandescents, since dimmer incandescent bulbs of given wattages tend to have have longer lifespans (the trade off).<br />That's just the start of it....there are specific legal workarounds to that effect, higher energy use but longer life for a bulb of given brightness.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Ban Workarounds</b><br />CFLs and LEDs have brightness issues, especially omnidirectionally to light up rooms - and they get dimmer with age.<br />That may mean using more of them to light up a room, negating savings, along with all the other reasons that savings don't hold up in practice, as covered via the left hand links here, especially the summary page link as also found at the bottom of this post.<br />But the focus here is on the incandescent bulbs themselves, and how they might continue to be used.<br /><br /><br />Rough Service<br />One is the "rough service" bulb route, for example <a href="http://www.newcandescent.com/">Newcandescent</a> incandescent manufacturer (who conspicuously don't state bulb brightness!) eg <a href="http://www.newcandescent.com/store/customer/100-watt-rough-service-a-19-frosted-bulb.html">100W</a> 130V 10,000 hrs $2.88 bulb, or <a href="http://aerolights.com/">Aero-Tech</a> , <a href="http://lightbulb.aerolights.com/item/aero-tech-bulbs-made-in-the-usa-20-000-hours/-a-series-light-bulbs-made-in-the-usa-20-000-hours/100a19-fr">100W</a> 120V 20 000hr bulb, 1000 lumen, for $2 [both manufacturers with minimum order conditions]<br />That makes the Aero-Tech bulb brightness somewhere between 1000 hour standard incandescent 60W bulbs (900 lumen) and 75W bulbs (1200 lumen), regular 110-120V 100W bulbs being around 1700 lumen.<br />While such "rough service" classed sturdier bulbs are allowed subject to sales monitoring as a workaround to get incandescents, and it's welcome that manufacturers are supplying them to meet such consumer demand, the bulbs would therefore otherwise be more of a convenience measure for difficult to reach locations - rather than to save energy or money for required brightness.<br /><!-- $2 dollar long life bulb plus 35 W extra energy cost for 20 000 hours, 35W x 20 000 hrs = 700 kWh, USA 12 cent per kWh <a href="http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_factors_affecting_prices">average residential cost</a> (EIA), 700 kWh x 12c = 8400c or 84 dollars, + 2 dollar bulb cost = 86 dollars.<br />Box of twenty 60 or 75W 1000 hour regular bulbs, typically 10-12 dollars, so the irony continues, in that these legal incandescents (legal in some respects also in the EU) use much more energy and money compared to the banned alternatives, more exactly depending on local electricity costs. --><br />Raised Voltage<br />As also with the Newcandescent bulb, many other currently legal bulbs eg "long life halogen" type replacements are marketed on a longer lifespan basis, this time from raising the voltage usually to 130V - but again, on a "dimmer bulb" 1000 lumen or so for 100W rating.<br />[As an aside, European and other 220V bulbs are noticeably dimmer than American ones, 100W only c.1300 lumen but rated 1000 hrs lifespan versus 750 hrs on US standard requirement]<br /><br />AC to DC<br />A third way also marketed as a workaround is via solutions like <a href="http://powerdisc.com/">Powerdisc.com</a>:<br />Quote: "By converting the electricity power used by the bulb from AC to DC, the Envirolite PowerDisc significantly reduces energy consumption up to 42% and also extends the bulb life up to 100 times therefore reducing bulb replacement costs." The website quotes around 30% lumen reduction along the lines of 130 Volt lamps, but that this brightness will be better maintained through the bulb life.<br />It is also more flexibly applicable to any incandescent bulb, just by putting a small disc on the bottom of it. While it does not stop the bulbs being banned, it therefore again extends their life. Good American inventive, and combative. spirit!<br /><br /><br /><br /><center><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RsTdRmL2Bro/UsastAqpj8I/AAAAAAAADTE/K9LzutnV5gE/s1600/TexasBulb_230_343.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img style="padding:0px;" border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RsTdRmL2Bro/UsastAqpj8I/AAAAAAAADTE/K9LzutnV5gE/s320/TexasBulb_230_343.jpg" /></a><br /><small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 200px;">&nbsp;<a href="http://www.christenadowsettphoto.com/">Christena Dowsett</a></small></small> <br /></center><!-- http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/2011/06/29/lavender-s-law-shines-light-on-federal-b-669212.php --><br /><b>Texas Hold 'Em</b><br />While some states like California and Nevada and the Canadian British Columbia province have sought to precede federal regulations, others have sought to stop them.<br /><img width="120" style="padding:0px; float:left; margin-top:0.5em; margin-right:2em; margin-left:1em;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-rtJyxLUjSgE/ThI3j2Iok8I/AAAAAAAAACk/rxdIZQZG-s4/s150/RickPerry_190x143.jpg" alt="" />Most notably, Gov Perry signed into law incandescents as being legal in Texas June 2011 (<a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/06/texas-to-allow-incandescent-light-bulbs.html">Texas Allows Regular Incandescent Bulbs</a>). The practical implications are less clear, supposedly that is only for local manufacture and sale, and it comes under similar federal-defying local laws like Arizona gun law or California /Colorado marijuana laws.<br />Still, Gov Perry got help from Republican colleagues Joe Barton and Michael Burgess in Congress, House Energy Committee, in attempts at thwarting federal regulations, including achieving the specific albeit temporary block of funding for federal oversight of regulations in Texas and elsewhere.<br />South Carolina Gov Nikki Haley may sign similar bill albeit stuck at end of senate stage there, having local small independent manufacturing, <!-- (eg <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.org/2012/02/south-carolina-bill-update.html">American Light Bulb Co</a> in Mullins),--> apparently awaiting federal and Texas repeal efforts - in fact around a dozen <a href="http://ceolas.net/#bills">state repeal bills</a> have been launched, most though likely speculative for a local constituency base without hope of success (similar MP campaign effort seen in Canada, as in a <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/12/canadian-mp-cheryl-gallants-campaign-to.html">recent post</a> here).<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Uncle Sam Strikes Back: Sales Monitoring</b><br />Joining hands with Uncle Maple Leaf... <br /><br />Exemption reversal condition: The Act includes a provision whereby, in cooperation with NEMA, sales of certain exempted lamps will be monitored, specifically:<br />• rough service<br />• vibration service<br />• 2601-3300 lumen general service (150-200W)<br />• 3-way<br />• shatter-resistant lamps<br /><br />For each of these lamp types, if sales double above the increase modeled for a given year — signaling that consumers are shifting from standard incandescents to these incandescents and thereby supposedly not saving energy — the lamp type will lose the exemption.<br /><br />Consequence: A requirement that any such popular lamp type can then only be sold "<i>in a package containing 1 lamp</i>", and with a maximum 40 watt rating in most cases (95-watt for 2601-3300 lumen ie 150-200W lamps, variably reduced for 3-way lamps).<br /><br />In other words, if sales go up, further restrictions arise, and only 1 lamp packages may be sold: <br />Buy several packages, or walk out the shop and back in again to buy another one.<br /><br />Note that tier 3 regulations by 2020 is planned to cut down on allowed exemptions anyway.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>EU too</b><br />Too much to go into here, the EU is not behind in elaborate checks and monitoring. <br />See previous posts under the EU tag. It includes Commission proposals to ban fittings for special bulbs which are modified to take regular bulbs, and the German Energy Commissioner seeking to extend the 50 German store inspectors he apparently got to inspect "rough service" sales in ordinary stores in that country, to EU-wide inspections. <br />An earlier Irish Government proposal has sought to fine the distribution of illegal (imported) incandescent bulbs by individual citizens eg to neighbors with a 5000 euro first offence fine, and a 50 000 euro fine alternatively 6 months prison for repeat offence. Such would of course be on top of any customs etc fines for illegal imports generally.<br /><br /><br />Pssst...want to buy a light bulb...<br /><br /><iframe width="600" height="340" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qZmacTaO0Ps?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br /><small style="float: right; padding-right: 30px;">&nbsp;<a href="http://www.christenadowsettphoto.com/">cei.org</a></small> <br /><!-- 640 360 --><br /><br /><b>The crass idiocy of a bureaucrat ruled world:</b><br />Do whatever it takes, to stop people from buying what they want, who in turn obviously do what they can, to satisfy their desires.<br />Above all, do not make any rational decisions, to actually deal with energy or emission issues, as per other posts here and the <a href="http://ceolas.net">ceolas.net</a> site.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a> 14 points, referenced: Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.<br />&nbsp;http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2014/01/usa-and-canada-light-bulb-ban-now-and.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-2350802836875369451Mon, 30 Dec 2013 13:45:00 +00002014-01-04T09:19:33.867-05:00CanadaEmissionsEnergy UseHalogenManufacturer LobbyingCanada Light Bulb Ban: A Summary of How it is Wrong<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a> Update, additions Jan 1 2014<br /><br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J8xTMcKEpos/Urd6hvc_vWI/AAAAAAAADSY/zSYSrjVerGs/s1600/canada_bulb_126_168.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img style="padding:0px;" width=300 border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-J8xTMcKEpos/Urd6hvc_vWI/AAAAAAAADSY/zSYSrjVerGs/s400/canada_bulb_126_168.jpg" /></a></div><br /><br /><br />There are particular reasons to have focused on the Canada light bulb ban in the past several posts.<br />Firstly, because unlike USA or EU there is some sort of chance of avoiding or at least overturning it later, given a simpler lawmaking procedure in a smaller jurisdiction.<br />Secondly, because it is particularly odd to ban them in such a country.<br /><br /><br />Strange to ban a popular safe product:<br /><br />It's not like banning lead paint, and some of the suggested replacements are arguably less safe to use.<br />CFLs have known light quality and safety issues, while expensive and subsidised LED clones for many rarely used bulbs in a 36 bulb Canada household hardly saves money and is hardly progress, LEDs use up many rare earth minerals and with several health and environmental issues themselves (eg ANSES France, UC Davis California investigations).<br /><br /><br /><br />Incandescents have many specific advantages for Canadians:<br /><br />Canadians live in relatively large homes where much time is spent with varied lighting conditions, and where incandescent light quality, reaction time, brightness, sensor/dimming and other versatility is welcome, along with bulb heat on most dark nights.<br />Incandescent advantages for Canadians are covered at length in section 3 of the analysis as listed below.<br />Also see "<a href="http://ceolas.net/#li11x">Why ban in Canada particularly wrong</a>" (http://ceolas.net/#li11x)<br /><br /><br /><br />Major manufacturers Philips, Osram and GE have oddly welcomed being told what they can or can't make:<br /><br />They have lobbied in different countries including Canada for a ban on patent expired simple generic cheap and relatively unprofitable products - and the proposal makes repeated mention of justifying a ban on their behalf.<br />The invitation to sympathy for not having competition banned can be compared with real sympathy if what they were preparing to make had been banned!<br />There is nothing wrong in manufacturer lobbying for profits on behalf of shareholders - it is arguably wrong of them not to. However, that does not require Government acquiescence on behalf of the public.<br />Besides, the manufacturers could of course just stop making the bulbs themselves in the name of the "progress" that they like to talk about in all their PR handouts regurgitated by politicians and media. After all, the very same manufacturers stopped making much else in the name of "progress". This had a natural market flow, in that the public could see the advantages of the new products, with little demand for the old ones, although always with niche uses (vinyl records, audio tubes, etc). <br />Therefore the irony and the idiocy that apples here: <br />If incandescents were not so popular, there would be no "need" for Government to ban them.<br /><br /><br /><br />Local Canadian industry and jobs:<br /><br />Adoption of US law as planned for more products and services carries implications of Canadian industry satisfying any specific local demand.<br />Not least in terms of ordinary incandescent light bulbs. The loss of jobs in USA and Europe was admitted by policy makers (EU over 5000 in final stage, adding to the thousands in ban anticipation). Complex CFL/LED manufacture is largely outsourced to China.<br />Local outfits with small overheads could easily make the simple generic patent-free products without licensing obligations, giving local Canadian jobs and local sustainability from using few components with little transport and no recycling needed, and no competition from the USA and little from elsewhere. <br />Compare with being blown over by Chinese imports and major American distributors who - in addition - have already known about their own American standard for 7 years and implemented it for 2, while, if anything, smaller Canadian counterparts have been preparing for the wrong original MEPS 2008 Canadian standard.<br /><br /><br /><br />The ban is justified as lowering electricity consumption:<br /><br />As it is a proposed ban for electricity consumption reasons, not because of unsafe bulbs, logically one would first look at the overall question of electricity consumption, looking at if and when a lowering is needed, and in turn the effects of various measures in relation to the penalty caused in terms of product choice or otherwise.<br />Renewables wind wave hydro and nuclear (Canadian uranium) hardly have Canadian shortage issues albeit that new plants or extensions could be avoided - hardly an issue with light bulbs for reasons soon explained.<br />The main issue is usually fossil fuel, especially coal, and its greater emissions (not just CO2) than other sources.<br /><br />Light bulbs don't burn coal or release CO2 gas.<br />Power plants might - and might not.<br />If there's a problem - deal with the problem.<br />In Canada, hardly a problem, given Canada 86% emission-free electricity, and of course coal itself can be treated in various ways.<br /><br />The usual "<i>10% of domestic electricity is used for lighting</i>" type statements,<br />ignore that around half of domestic lighting is not incandescent anyway, especially the mainly used kitchen lighting, also that replacements use electricity, also the heat replacement of incandescents and power factor (PF) issues of CFLs and LEDs (effectively energy use not recorded by the meters), also that domestic electricity is a small part of overall grid demand (industrial, commercial, municipal, transport - with hardly any incandescent use in any of those sectors).<br />On a general level, also the life cycle energy use of more complex replacement lighting, including transport in all stages from mineral mining to recycling (when not dumped, leeching mercury etc) and bunker oil powered shipping from China by major manufacturers, compared to easier local Canada manufacture by small/new manufacturers of patent-free simple incandescent bulbs.<br />Incandescent electricity use is just fractional amounts of mostly off-peak evening-night surplus electricity, as per usage and grid data references, effectively smaller still given the bulb heat supplied as per Ontario/BC institutional studies, and with the Canadian Center for Housing Technology also confirming that 83% to 100% of lighting energy contributes to heat demand reduction.<br /><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">The total reduction [in energy use] would be 0.54 x 0.8 x 0.76% = 0.33%,<br />This figure is almost certainly an overestimate,<br />particularly as the inefficiency of conventional bulbs generates heat which supplements other forms of heating in winter.<br /><br />Which begs the question: is it really worth it?<br />Politicians are forcing a change to a particular technology which is fine for some applications but not universally liked, and which has disadvantages.<br />The problem is that legislators are unable to tackle the big issues of energy use effectively, so go for the soft target of a high profile domestic use of energy...<br />...This is gesture politics."<br /></blockquote>Using comparable European Commission VITO data to similarly cut down even greater "<i>15% of domestic electricity use</i>" type statements, this came from the Cambridge University Scientific Alliance, UK Government advisers from several institutions normally supportive of energy and emission measures, similarly with other referenced science institution communications from different countries. <br /><br /><br /><br />Alternative policies:<br /><br />Again, as it is a proposed ban for electricity consumption reasons, not because of unsafe bulbs, <br />then electricity consumption reduction policies should be looked at in an overall sense.<br />That means, if required, say coal tax or emission tax or regulations, or a general electricity tax with payback subsidies for house insulation etc - ideally conceived within an overall electricity distribution policy that increases supplier competition and ease of switching between those suppliers, itself made more easy with eventual smart metering systems. Smart meter systems will also shift people from peak time use to other times of electricity surplus availability, by time-basd pricing.<br />Compare with the pedantic bureaucratic exercise of telling Canadian folks what light bulbs they can or can't use in their bedrooms, and repeating the process for a plethora of other products.<br /><br />Of course, if light bulbs really needed policy targeting, it could be done by information, taxation, or market stimulation measures, as also described, rather than clumsy once-off standards that permanently bans also any future invention that might have been made with its own specific advantages.<br /><br /><br /><br />The "Hey don't worry everybody" message:<br /><br />Instead, Canadians worried about future choice may soon hear the on-song message from Government spokespeople:<br />"Hey, don't worry everybody, similar Halogen incandescent light bulbs will still be allowed!".<br />Except that they won't.<br />Adoption of USA law is the main stated justification for the proposal, defended as standard harmonisation to facilitate future trade on the North American market, and planned for more products and services.<br />This of itself should worry those concerned about specific Canadian service for Canadians. <br />It also means abiding by future decisions in Washington.<br />As it happens, USA EISA 2007 law tier 2 2014-2017 regulation on light bulbs will ban all incandescents for general service, including Halogens, based on the 45 lumen per Watt final rule requirement that equates to fluorescent bulb standard.<br />Presumably the Ottawa Government know this:<br />"<i>it is anticipated that the proposed standards would help to increase the level of acceptability for MEPS [minimum energy perfomance standards] for many Canadians, thus facilitating the adoption of further MEPS for these and other products in the future</i>."<br />A little more upfront honesty would perhaps not go amiss...<br /><br />One might in passing note that the Halogen type replacements anyway have some light qualitative differences, also being more complex and expensive with marginal savings and therefore less popular in a free choice either with consumers or politicians (no Halogen switchover programs!).<br /><br /><br /><br />For details of why the regulations are wrong for Canada, see the introductory post<br />"<a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/12/o-canada-how-aligning-to-us-law-will.html">Canada to adopt more US Laws beginning with Light Bulbs:<br />Losing Industry, Jobs and Choice, with Hardly any Savings</a>" <br /><br />Full version &nbsp; <a href="http://ceolas.net/Docs/Reply_Canada_Light_Bulb_Proposal_Jan1_2014_P7.docx">As Doc</a> &nbsp; &nbsp;<a href="http://ceolas.net/Docs/Reply_Canada_Light_Bulb_Proposal_Jan1_2014_P7.pdf">As PDF</a><br /><br /><b>Content List</b><br /><br /><b>1. Why Alignment to USA will also ban Halogens</b><br />The supposedly allowed Halogens banned on USA EISA tier 2 2014-2017 backstop final rule equating to CFL standard. Following Washington means following any other change they make. Proposal already envisages further restrictions.<br /><b>2. What is good for Canadian Industry, Jobs and Consumers?</b><br />Light bulbs stated as the first of more US laws in manufacture and service to harmonise NAFTA standards. Allowing US based corporate access does not mean having to legislate against local production to local desire.<br /><b>3. How Incandescents have particular Advantages for Canadians</b><br />Beyond heat, also brightness, and situational advantages in large homes where much time spent<br /><b>4. Simple Incandescent Advantages versus Halogens</b> <br />Halogens more complex and expensive for little savings advantage, hence unpopular in free choice either with consumers or politicians.<br /><b>5. On Energy saving for the Nation</b><br />Fractional overall and on comparative policies, and a main off-peak time use avails of surplus production capacity anyway.<br /><b>6. On Emission saving for the Planet</b><br />Ditto, with the addition that Canada has 86% emission-free electricity and that emissions may increase on heat replacement effect<br /><b>7. On Money saving for the People</b><br />Ditto, with the addition that free choice is not always about money saving, that many bulbs are not often used, and that subsidies plus utility compensation may mean higher bulb and electricity payments anyway via tax or electricity bills.<br /><b>8. Worldwide Policy and Major Manufacturers</b><br />Cooperation to enforce low lifespan on incandescent bulbs followed by cooperation to altogether ban such now patent-expired generic cheap competition. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.<br /><b>9. Alternative Policies targeting Light Bulbs</b><br />Information, taxation/subsidy and market competitive alternatives could and should be considered before bans. <br /><b>10. Incandescents - the Real Green Bulbs?</b><br />Efficient, earth saving, long lasting and sustainable.<br />The simplest way to produce bright light from electricity banned for being too popular, by the stupidity that passes for global governance.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a> <br />14 points, referenced:<br />Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs. <br />&nbsp;http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/12/canada-light-bulb-ban-summary-of-how-it.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-4815137611074285525Tue, 24 Dec 2013 17:17:00 +00002014-01-04T09:24:45.782-05:00Canada Light Bulb Ban: A Summary of Why it is Wrong<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a> This old post had problems in updating, just keeping this for any incoming links: <br />See <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/12/canada-light-bulb-ban-summary-of-how-it.html">new post</a><br />http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/12/canada-light-bulb-ban-summary-of-why-it.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-3393093918241308728Mon, 23 Dec 2013 14:10:00 +00002013-12-24T12:25:26.029-05:00Campaigns/PetitionsCanadaCFLCanadian MP Cheryl Gallant's Campaign to Stop the Canada Light Bulb Ban<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a> <br /><img width="130" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-10ZroSbf2Z4/UrgwfiEEgoI/AAAAAAAADSw/VX8a58VPP5c/s130/Canada_MP_cheryl_gallant_160_160.jpg" alt="" />On the theme of the Canada ban covered in the last series of posts,<br />Canadian MP Cheryl Gallant (<a href="http://cherylgallant.com/">website</a>, <a href="http://www.facebook.com/CherylGallant">facebook page</a>) has a campaign going against it.<br />Interestingly, she is a member of the Government Conservative Party launching the ban.<br />But rather than her being an odd one out, what is odder is surely that her Conservative Party which otherwise proudly proclaims a "free market" and "free choice" agenda, should back such a state totalitarian measure.<br />And, yes, it is a "ban", setting standards that don't allow them obviously "bans" them, and supposedly allowed "similar" incandescent (halogen type) alternatives will be banned too on adopting US law, EISA tier 2 2014-2017 final rule requirement of 45 lumens per Watt equating to fluorescent bulbs.<br /><br />For more details of the Canada Government ban proposal, and a 10 section analysis of it, see the <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/12/o-canada-how-aligning-to-us-law-will.html">first post</a> of the series. <br />As mentioned, direct appeal to Government itself is possible, they invite comments via their stated comment line (+1) 613-996-4359 or email equipment@nrcan.gc.ca <br />While formally finished 19th December that does not mean not being able to still "send a message".<br /><br />The same applies of course to MP Cheryl's campaign.<br />Albeit launched just recently, there does not seem to have been any news or updates since then. But it's still ongoing, and an MP of the same party as the Government would presumably have "the ear" of those in charge more than an effort by other people, also in any future attempt at reversing a decision, and signing the petition and supporting the campaign in other ways also gives such a backing of course.<br /><br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lrB9-IDX4TU/Urgvt_o-btI/AAAAAAAADSo/c6KFxZPszxQ/s1600/stop_ban_canada_image_720_378.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img style="padding:0px;" border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lrB9-IDX4TU/Urgvt_o-btI/AAAAAAAADSo/c6KFxZPszxQ/s500/stop_ban_canada_image_720_378.jpg" /></a></div><br /><br /><br />Campaign site: <a href="http://www.stopthelightbulbban.ca/">stopthelightbulbban.ca</a><br />Petition <a href="http://www.stopthelightbulbban.ca/co-sign-cheryl-gallants-letter/ ">signing</a>.<br /><br /><br />Campaign site message:<br /><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"><b>Safe and Affordable</b> <br />The incandescent light bulb is safe and affordable.<br />Starting next January, 75- and 100-watt incandescent light bulbs will become black market items, and by the end of 2014 the same will happen to 40- and 60-watt versions.<br />Co-sign Cheryl Gallant’s letter to the Ministers of Natural Resources, Health and Environment, and tell the Government to stop the light bulb ban.<br />Most Canadians do not know light bulbs will be banned. Tell your friends and family at once. Encourage everyone you know to co-sign Cheryl’s letter before it is too late!<br /><br /><b>Unsafe Disposal</b><br />Unlike incandescent lights, which can be disposed of safely in the regular garbage, CFLs contain mercury, which can have significant impacts on both human health and the environment if not disposed of properly. Consequently, these lights are generally not accepted in the regular garbage stream and need to be disposed of using a hazardous waste program.<br />Proper Disposal 24% Tossed In Regular Garbage 55%<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://mail.mphost.ca/t/t-64ADE4D0154588F9">Letter</a> circulated around 14th December<br /><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">Dear friends,<br /><br />The countdown is on. Starting January 1, 2014 our federal government will commence the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs. The overwhelming response to the constituency survey on whether or not a further delay in the ban is needed was that the ban should not go ahead at all.<br /><br />The ban arose from the Kyoto Protocol as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty that sets binding obligations on industrialized countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Although Canada did not ratify the agreement, the ban on incandescent light bulbs stayed on our books.<br /><br />The main alternative to incandescent light bulbs is the compact fluorescent lamp (CFL). CFL bulbs cost roughly 8 times more than incandescent light bulbs. They contain levels of mercury much higher than that of incandescent light bulbs, and are potentially harmful to humans, animals, and our environment.<br /><br />Mercury is a neurotoxin, and must be specially disposed of, as it can contaminate water supplies and soil if dumped into landfills. According to Environment Canada the mercury contained in a typical thermometer can contaminate five Olympic-size swimming pools to toxic levels. Less than 10 per cent of CFLs are recycled amongst the tens of millions that are sold each year in Canada.<br /><br />In a recent stroke of irony Canada signed the UN’s Global Mercury Agreement, which imposes a legally binding pledge to cut atmospheric emissions and environmental releases of mercury, in an international effort to reduce global mercury pollution and protect the environment and human health.<br /><br />We have 17 days to stop the ban. Will you help me?<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Cheryl <br /></blockquote><br /><!-- <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-10ZroSbf2Z4/UrgwfiEEgoI/AAAAAAAADSw/VX8a58VPP5c/s1600/Canada_MP_cheryl_gallant_160_160.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-10ZroSbf2Z4/UrgwfiEEgoI/AAAAAAAADSw/VX8a58VPP5c/s400/Canada_MP_cheryl_gallant_160_160.jpg" /></a></div>--><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a> <br />14 points, referenced: <br />Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs. <br />&nbsp;<br />http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/12/canadian-mp-cheryl-gallants-campaign-to.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-6372847954308890522Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:08:00 +00002013-12-23T09:14:12.979-05:00CanadaCFLEmissionsEnergy UseEULEDLifespanLighting SalesUSA::All PostsIncandescents: The Real Green Bulbs Also in Canada<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a> <br />As the Canadian comment process finishes, as an American incandescent ban largely finishes on January 1, and as the EU review process also seems to have concluded in its first phase, some concluding remarks to the last series of posts seems apt.<br /><br />The ban, not just on light bulbs but on much else in society, is largely driven by 2 aspects, supposed savings and product progress. Both have been well covered, but product progress deserves extra mention in an overall conclusion.<br /><br /><b>Product progress?</b><br />Product progress arises from increased, not decreased, market competition.<br />Energy saving progress in particular has been continuous throughout history.<br />Fluorescents and LEDs? On the market, without bans.<br />Solid state transistors replacing incandescent tubes? On the market, without bans.<br /><br />Light bulb manufacturers could themselves simply stop making the "<i>terrible incandescents</i>".<br />That's what the very same companies normally do in the name of progress, they already stopped making cassettes, video cartridges, 8-track systems and much else. <br />Certainly they got - and get - lots of taxpayer subsidy goodies to make alternative bulbs while still slapping their own patents on them for yet more profit, and certainly politicians feel obliged to further help out their subsidised buddies sell more bulbs (as the Canadian proposal says, in so many words, in justifying bans because of committed investments). <br /><br />The supposed problem is therefore that idiot citizens choose not to replace <b>all</b> their existing bulbs with the pushed alternatives, disregarding that most citizens - as the ban brigade keep saying - indeed have bought <b>some</b> for the advantages that they of course also have.<br /><br />Of course, politicians don't want to declare their voting citizens to be idiots in what they choose to buy. Not openly, anyway. So the roundabout talk is that<br />"<b><i>Regulations force faster development of better new products</i></b>":<br />"Better" always being energy saving in usage with disregard to all else, including overall savings.<br />Obviously by necessity this brings new alternatives, but it is development that aims to <b>fill the gap</b> of popular incandescents - look at all the <b>LED incandescent bulb clones</b>. Hardly true or exciting progress.<br />As said, intrinsic advantages are of incandescents as bulbs, fluorescents as tubes, and LEDs as sheets, and was the original development of the latter 2 products, before all the push to compromise them as bulbs (yes, still with advantages of their own technology, but hardly developed as such now in bulb format, eg the flexible color temperatures of <b>RGB LEDs</b> rather than White LED bulbs).<br /><br />A further issue is that regulation cut off standards don't just ban what exists. It bans all that <b>could have existed</b>, and never will, despite possible advantages beyond consumption of energy in usage. This, as with all else, is the case not just with light bulbs in the worldwide totalitarian definition of progress.<br /><br /><br />Everyone can have <b>different legitimate views of the necessity of targeting products</b> to save energy.<br />But what is then surprising is <b>the complete lack of analysis of alternative policies</b>.<br />Politicans? Media? Total silence.<br /><br />Alternative <b>information, taxation, market policies</b> as thoroughly covered in the <a href="freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/12/why-ban-bulbs-alternative-information.html">last post</a>.<br />As the most fervent political, media and lobby grouped ban supporters tend to have a green or left-wing persuasion, the avoidance of all consideration of taxation is particularly puzzling. Even a mid-size 35 million country like Canada has well over 100 million in relevant sales, while in pre-ban <b>USA and EU it runs into 2 billion sales</b> in each case, of a cheap easily taxable product with high turnover, that could help all the " public spend" measures these people want. <br />In the USA, the California government is bankrupt - yet, like Canadian British Columbia, they ban every product in sight, instead of taxing it, and could of course announce it as subsidising cheaper alternatives re any "we hate tax" issue.<br />The point is not that tax is good. The point is that it is arguably better than bans for those who favor bans, while the market stimulation alternative is still better on the argumentation given, if light bulb targeting is (dubiously) deemed necessary.<br /><br /><br /><br />So, to turn it all around.<br />Green is a color with many hues!<br /><br />The case for looking at incandescents as the true environmentally friendly bulbs has been made <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/10/incandescents-real-green-bulbs.html">earlier</a> here.<br /><br />That can be expanded on, and also put into a Canadian context, given the last series of posts here. The following is based on section 10 of the <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/12/o-canada-how-aligning-to-us-law-will.html">reply to the Canadian proposal</a> for January 1 regulations on light bulbs, but as seen, it is generally applicable everywhere...<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><center><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1qG7DIRq4Zo/UmEnavrzfoI/AAAAAAAADDI/bWzyYZhUrN0/s1600/big_green_bulb_projection_612_612.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img style="padding:0px;" border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1qG7DIRq4Zo/UmEnavrzfoI/AAAAAAAADDI/bWzyYZhUrN0/s400/big_green_bulb_projection_612_612.jpg" /></a></div></center><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>M'Lords and Ladies, the case for the humble simple incandescent light bulb:</b><br /><br /><br /><b>Efficient?</b><br />Certainly efficient, in making bright light using few components<br /><br /><br /><b>Earth Saving?</b><br />Certainly sparing the earth much mining for minerals<br /><br /><br /><b>Long Lasting?</b><br />Certainly they can last long, at least to 20,000 hours at low price, as shown by mentioned small manufacturers, when major manufacturers don't control the markets.<br /><br /><br /><b>Sustainable?</b><br />Certainly sustainable, in being easily locally made generic patent-free bulbs, <br />without much transport of parts or product, and without needing recycling.<br /><br /><br /><b>Incandescents don't burn coal and they don't give out CO2 or other emissions</b>.<br />Power plants might - and might not.<br />If there is a Problem - deal with the Problem.<br /><br />Electrical products are only indirectly coupled to any energy source use, and in turn, the main evening-night time use of incandescent bulbs really only consume small amounts of off-peak surplus capacity electricity anyway, as seen.<br /><br />Power plant emissions are decreasing on present policies, both from alternative source use and in directly being reduced and treated in various ways. Small overall off-peak bulb use and coal power plant night cycle operational factors reduces if not eliminates supposed bulb ban emission savings, and in a country like Canada of 86% emission-free electricity a ban even increases emissions on the heat replacement effect. <br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Incandescent light bulbs:</b><br />A pointless very visual feel-good target for an agenda driven ban seeking to ensure that the world loses the simplest cheapest product it ever had to produce light from electricity, <br />an aesthetically pleasing versatile invention, whose doom would arise not from being unpopular, but from being popular, through the stupidity that passes for global governance.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a> <br />14 points, referenced: <br />Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs. <br />&nbsp;http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/12/incandescents-real-green-bulbs-also-in.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-9112640729488105988Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:52:00 +00002013-12-24T12:23:58.260-05:00Campaigns/PetitionsCanadaEUHistoryLighting SalesUSA::All PostsWhy Ban the Bulbs? Alternative Information, Taxation and Market Policies to Product Prohibition<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a> <br />Worldwide, <br />the game is on for ever more restrictive usage standards of allowable products in society, be that the energy use of buildings or cars, the water use of toilets or showers, or the electricity use of a host of other products.<br />Already questionable in terms of actual savings and in the compromised performance and usability of what is left for people to buy, the policy is even more questionable on electrical products.<br />This is not only because there is a whole range of energy alternatives to counter any shortage, but also because electrical product use is not coupled to energy use. Banning certain cars or toilets may at least theoretically reduce their oil and water consumption. Electrical products are not coupled to say coal use, coal and power plant policies can be directly implemented, and the necessary saving of long-lasting/renewables carries its own question mark - in particular as we look at incandescent bulb bans, since they largely use off-peak evening -night surplus capacity electricity and thereby could never save on the building or extension of any power plants even on accepted saving assumptions.<br /><br /><br />Fundamentally, <br />if a politician has something in his or her head that can be likened to a brain, he/she could of course first consider alternatives to banning what people want to buy (no "need" for a ban if they don't want to buy it).<br />Unfortunately, in today's world, <b>first</b> politicians find it necessary to continually subsidise corporate "green" products, and if this is "not enough", <b>then</b> the competition has to be banned too, with new standards that "happen" to allow the patented goodies of corporate buddies to pass through the needle's eye, with the backing of well-meaning but naive green people, all crying together in ecstasy over saving the planet and echoed by a pathetic media that regurgitates everything thrown at it. Yes folks, it's called progress.<br /><br /><br />But there is another way. <br />Actually, several ways, that at least should be considered and arguably implemented to see if effects are judged as sufficient, before arriving at the nuclear option of a ban.<br /><br />To make clear: I don't consider the product targeting is necessary in the first place.<br />But the point here is that <b>even going along</b> with the supposed saving effect and justification of targeting products, jumping to bans is still wrong.<br />Information, building on past efforts, and taxation, with or without parallell subsidy policy, are two alternatives. <br />However, market competitive stimulation as finally considered is in my view best in any product targeting.<br /><br /><br /><br />While the following is all applicable to the USA, the EU and anywhere else, <br />it is also part of a reply to the Canadian Natural Resources Government Ministry, Office of Energy Efficiency, concerning the <a href="http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2013/2013-10-05/html/reg6-eng.html">Canada Gazette Vol. 147, No. 40 — October 5, 2013</a> published proposal on Light Bulb Regulations to be effective as from Jan 1 2014,<br />and the <a href="http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/regulations-codes-standards/12342">invitation to comment</a> by December 19th.<br /><br />See the <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/12/o-canada-how-aligning-to-us-law-will.html">introductory post </a> in the series, also covering policy aspects of the Canada Government proposal to switch to USA standards (sections 1 and 2 below).<br />A main claim is that Halogens "similar to traditional bulbs" will still be allowed, but they will be banned under US law as referenced, and the Government proposal itself speaks of further standard restrictions being facilitated.<br />Also, Canadian media has missed that the light bulb rules are said to be just a beginning of a switch to USA laws, with implications not just for Canadian sovereignty, but also of local Canadian manufacture and service to specific Canadian needs.<br /><br />A <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/12/canada-and-nordic-countries.html">second post</a> highlighted the particular advantages to Canadian citizens of incandescent bulbs, being a lot more than just incandescent heat, as reflected in time spent at home, home size, number of bulbs and the varied lighting conditions where incandescents are a more desirable choice (section 3 below).<br /><br /><br /><b>This time</b>, therefore, the highlighting that the knee-jerk banning of products as requested by greens and corporates in odd unison is not the <b>only</b> relevant policy to assure lower energy consumption (section 9 below). <br />Information, taxation/subsidy and market policies are ignored as alternatives. Why?<br /><br /><b>1. Why Alignment to USA will also ban Halogens<br />2. What is good for Canadian Industry, Jobs and Consumers?<br />3. How Incandescents have particular Advantages for Canadians<br />4. Simple Incandescent Advantages versus Halogens <br />5. On Energy saving for the Nation<br />6. On Emission saving for the Planet<br />7. On Money saving for the People<br />8. Worldwide Policy and Major Manufacturers<br />9. Alternative Policies targeting Light Bulbs<br />10.Incandescents - the Real Green Bulbs?</b><br /><br />Full version:&nbsp; <a href="http://ceolas.net/Docs/Reply_Canada_Light_Bulb_Proposal_Jan1_2014_P7.docx">As Doc</a> &nbsp; &nbsp;<a href="http://ceolas.net/Docs/Reply_Canada_Light_Bulb_Proposal_Jan1_2014_P7.pdf">As PDF</a><br /><br /><br />As with all section extracts, the below may refer to other parts of the full document.<br />Certain revisions and update improvements have been added compared to the document version (until that in turn is updated).<br />This also expands on relevant parts of the 14 point "<a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.ie/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a>" general international summary.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><center><big><big><b>9. &nbsp;Alternative Policies targeting Light Bulbs</b></big></big> &nbsp; &nbsp;<br /></center><br /><br />Worldwide, remarkably little consideration is given to alternative policies, not just - as already seen - with respect to saving energy, but also with respect of saving energy when targeting light bulbs themselves.<br />Much the same goes for all other energy efficiency regulation.<br />Obviously the last section on lobbying and undue influence might - and should - raise questions as to why that may be so.<br /><br />There are (at least) 3 alternative policy divisions.<br />In a sense "there is something for everyone", as it includes both traditional left-wing and right-wing policies.<br />Again, this makes the avoiding of any such policies all the more puzzling.<br /><br />The consideration here will therefore be on information, taxation/subsidy and market stimulation policies. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><center><big><b>Information Policies</b></big> &nbsp;<br /></center><br /><br />In the world of odd justification of banning light bulbs, we may as well throw in another one.<br />US and EU politicians keep talking about uninformed consumers making the "<b>wrong choices</b>".<br />The right choice is of course always what the politicians want.<br />Be that as it may, the idea of clear <b>labelling</b> of what people buy presumably helps.<br />So in the USA and EU, <i><b>first</b></i> the bulbs are <b>banned on the basis of poor choices by uninformed consumers</b>, <i><b>then</b></i> clearer labelling in terms of bulb brightness comparison and energy use is introduced.<br />Cart before the horse. Brilliant.<br /><br />The converse of this is of course that politicians - and not without justification - can say that at least they have had a lot of energy saving and switchover campaigns to encourage switching bulbs (they are even called "<i>energy saving</i>" rather than fluorescent or LED bulbs, for heaven's sake) and store displays tend to do likewise.<br />On top of that, Canada delayed two years with a specific consumer information rationale and to ally fears about fluorescent bulbs.<br /><br />One might say that if well-informed people <b>still</b> make the <b>wrong</b> choices, they are either incredibly stupid, or, dare one say it, the ban pushing politicians are.<br /><br />We are back to the reasons why people choose bulbs, which is not just to save energy, but also not just because incandescents are cheap.<br />The main point - as highlighted in official and institutional studies (OEE, BC Hydro) is that the penetration of energy saving bulbs is actually pretty good, as in the USA and EU the overwhelming majority have at least one and usually more of them.<br />The purchase pattern simply suggests that they do not want <b>all</b> their bulbs to be the same kind.<br />To repeat, the campaigns to "switch all your bulbs and save money" is like saying "<b>Eat only bananas and save money</b>".<br /><br />There is of course also the simple logic applying that <b>any success in achieving switchover</b>, that for example BC Hydro keeps mentioning albeit via subsidised replacements, or out of "energy saving" bulbs getting "ever cheaper and better", <b>also means less and less savings from imposing a ban</b> - which therefore in turn does not just hit "reluctant technology-fiend backwoodsmen" but also any "progressive" household who sees room and environment conditions where incandescent use is still advantageous (particularly rarely used lamps that don't warrant any unsubsidised costly LED clones either).<br /><br />Again<br /><b>New lighting is bought - why ban old lighting, no point<br />New lighting is not bought - why ban old lighting, no point</b><br /><br />It remains strange that particularly in Canada, where a ban was delayed on informational grounds, a ban is deemed necessary for what is said to have been successfully informed consumers about their choices (even if taken as being information about "post-ban" choices, it is still consumer information about the alternatives to simple incandescents).<br />Assuming a nevertheless continued desire to target bulbs, we have the tax/subsidy and market stimulation alternatives.<br /><br />In comparison with a regulatory ban, taxation (and/or subsidies) have several advantages apart from keeping choice.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><center><big><b>Taxation-Subsidies</b></big> &nbsp;<br /></center><br /><br /><b>Why</b> are simple incandescent light bulbs being banned?<br />They are not being banned for being unsafe to use, like lead paint.<br />No, the reason for banning bulbs is simply to <b>reduce the consumption of energy</b>.<br /><br />After all, as regulation proponents keep saying,<br />"<i><b>We are not banning the bulbs, we are setting energy usage limitations on them!</b></i>".<br />Similarly with the plethora of energy usage limitations on buildings (climatically sealed), cars (performance issues, and possible safety issues, in limiting heavier types), white goods, TV sets, computers and much else, and resulting in choice limitation on varied usability/performance characteristics as per references.<br /><br />Taking a "liberal" left-wing stance, <b>how do governments usually reduce consumption</b>?<br />Of safe products like luxury goods, or even unsafe ones, like tobacco and alcohol?<br />That's right - taxation.<br /><br />Note the Government income from taxation to appropriately reduce energy consumption <b>anywhere along the usage chain</b>, say on <b>coal</b>, electricity from coal, any electricity, or on individual products without replacement worries, <b>compared</b> to a <b>pedantic multitude</b> of carefully crafted legislation on what consumers can or can't buy and use - and without any direct government income from it.<br /><br />Taxation is of course also of popularity concern to politicians, particularly in the USA.<br />But this can be countered with how the money is spent - at least among poorer voters - such that for example electricity price rises may be countered by home insulation schemes.<br />Moreover, taxing say coal (or CO2 emissions) makes renewables and other sources more attractive, and with proper grid competition the switching of suppliers is easier.<br />As for product taxation, taxation can help subsidise the lower price of alternatives.<br /><b>A quadruple whammy, in reducing consumption, equilibrating the market, keeping choice and maybe leaving some government income for other uses.<br />So much for "the market has failed - we must ban these products".</b><br /><br />That's not all: <br />Because in <b>facing the inevitable grumble about the "higher price" for a targeted product, politicians can therefore counter that they are lowering the price on other products</b>, or similarly on lowering the price of alternative electricity provision, where subsidising renewables may be helped out of coal tax receipts.<br /><br />It gets even better, in the sense that with say light bulbs, there'd be knowledge that <b>a ban would have been the alternative</b> - and the government can of course <b>remind</b> people of that too.<br /><br />For a government so inclined it gets still better with the simple incandescent light bulbs, compared to other products.<br />They are <b>cheap</b> and can proportionate to price <b>absorb a fair bit of tax</b>, and they have a relatively <b>fast turnover</b> as commonly produced in short (1000 hr) lifespans.<br />I could not locate Canada relevant annual light bulb sales, but a rough estimate based on 13 million households and average 36 lighting points and somewhat less than half relevantly incandescent and comparable pre-ban Scandinavian turnover rate would be <b>well over 100 million</b> annual incandescent sales.<br />Whatever, a neat little earner, even if taxing obviously reduces sales (conversely a very pro-ban government can of course equate with a ban by a large tax, but then the ban route becomes more logical except for determined buyers of the bulbs).<br /><b>Bans</b> as said give <b>no government income</b> (at least not directly - strictly, supposed household money savings from a ban can be used for other taxable consumption, but the money savings argumentation is itself dubious for reasons given, and savings are of course more indirect anyway, also in assuming people will relevantly spend the money in equal or greater taxable ways). <br /><br />That is not all.<br />It is much <b>easier to implement and to alter</b> taxation, and easier to flexibly apply it to new products that change the market situation, than clumsy one-set-standard regulations that need to have complex bureaucratic worked-out replacements - as seen from current elaborately defined regulations.<br />It is also <b>easier to remove</b> taxation when deemed no longer to be needed (eg when sufficient low emission energy is available), <b>without having to restart the abandoned manufacture</b> of products, as with regulation.<br /><br /><br />Still, I am against taxation as the best alternative choice, as it assumes there is a reason to target the bulbs, and affects local industry and jobs advantages and much else for much the same reasons as bans.<br /><br />There is <b>a still better alternative...</b><br /><br /><br /><a name="market"></a> <br /><br /><center><big><b>Stimulation of Free Market Competition</b></big> &nbsp;<br /></center><br /><br />If light bulbs <b>need</b> to be targeted in the first place (doubtful, for all other reasons given), then market stimulation, or more exactly <b>market competitive stimulation</b>, is in my view the best option <b>also to lower energy consumption all the way along the energy usage chain</b>:<br /><br />Firstly, because producers of electricity, just like manufacturers, are then more keen to keep down their own energy usage and cost.<br />Secondly, because manufacturers are also pushed to deliver energy and cost saving products that the public actually want (and have always wanted, and do buy, even when costing more, and can imaginately be marketed for their savings in usage - rather than to lobby regulators for easier profits through bans on cheap competition).<br /><br />"Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run"?<br />Clothes, battery, or washing up liquid manufacturers don't look for bans on cheap alternatives.<br />They properly and imaginatively advertise their wares.<br /><br />New inventions, new products, <b>energy saving or with other advantages - can always be helped to the market</b>, though not continually supported. <br /><b>Contrary to common political propaganda, innovation does not necessitate banning what has gone before</b>.<br />On the contrary, product innovation - whether with buildings, cars, washing machines or light bulbs - is proven as desirable, in direct comparison and direct competition on the market place.<br />A progress <b>seen throughout history</b>, also of new energy saving alternatives, <b>like the invention of fluorescent and LED lighting</b> - without regulations being present.<br /><br />The proposal specifically states a reason for delaying the ban was "for further advances in lighting technology to develop".<br />Presumably waiting longer allows still further development, and still less reason to ban alternatives.<br /><br />The retort may be that "<b><i>banning forces speedier development of new products</i></b>":<br />Obviously by necessity it brings new alternatives, but it is development that aims to <b>fill the gap</b> of popular incandescents - look at all the <b>LED incandescent bulb clones</b>.<br /><b>Hardly true or exciting progress</b>, now is it, hand on your hearts, Canadian politicians?<br />As said, <b>intrinsic advantages are of incandescents as bulbs, fluorescents as tubes, and LEDs as sheets</b>, and was the original development of the latter 2 products, before all the push to compromise them as bulbs (yes, still with advantages of their own technology, but hardly developed as such now in bulb format, eg the flexible color temperatures of <b>RGB LEDs</b> rather than White LED bulbs).<br /><br /><br />A further issue is that regulation cut off standards don't just ban what exists. It bans all that <b>could have existed</b>, and never will, despite possible advantages beyond consumption of energy in usage. <br />For example in new bio-luminescence research, if assisted power consumption went beyond a certain level it would never be allowed, given new technology-neutral energy consumption standards. <br />Of course incandescent technology development itself is doomed for lack of research funding commitment on what would likely anyway be banned.<br /><br />The point is not that energy saving is not good. Of course it is.<br />But product bans that are arguably overall and comparatively pointless in saving energy become a form of <b>totalitarian policy</b> to favour some whisper-in-the-ear multinational corporations to <b>force people to buy products they presumably would not otherwise buy (or the bans would not be "necessary")</b>, products which might indeed improve in internal competition of restricted choice but hardly as much as on an open free market against a multitude of products and manufacturers, and without the quality-for-price pressure that the continued existence of cheap alternatives would give.<br /><br />Canadians like people elsewhere <b>spend much of their lives under artificial lighting</b>.<br />There is <b>hardly any regulation that has such an effect on so many for so much of the time</b>.<br /><br /><br />How many politicians should it take to change a light bulb?<br />None.<br /><br />How many citizens should be allowed to choose?<br />Everyone.<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a><br />14 points, referenced: <br />Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs. <br />&nbsp;http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/12/why-ban-bulbs-alternative-information.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-3509718281011351517Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:55:00 +00002013-12-24T12:23:38.867-05:00Campaigns/PetitionsCanadaCFLHalogenLEDLight QualityCanada and Nordic Countries: Incandescent Light Bulb Usage Advantages<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a> <br />... it's about a lot more than the heat of incandescent bulbs!<br /><br />Update info: Campaign against the ban by Ontario MP <a href="http://cherylgallant.com/">Cheryl Gallant</a>:<br /><a href="http://www.stopthelightbulbban.ca/">stop the ban page</a> (with petition), <a href="https://www.facebook.com/CherylGallant">facebook page</a><br /><br />See the last post.<br />It focuses on policy aspects of the Canada Government proposal to switch to USA standards.<br />A main claim is that Halogens "similar to traditional bulbs" will still be allowed, but they will be banned under US law as referenced, and the Government proposal itself speaks of further standard restrictions being facilitated.<br />While section 3 will remain there, having already linked to it in correspondence etc, it and some other sections have a general informative aspect so may be further highlighted separately.<br /><br />To recap:<br />This is part of a reply to the Canadian Natural Resources Government Ministry, Office of Energy Efficiency, concerning the <a href="http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2013/2013-10-05/html/reg6-eng.html">Canada Gazette Vol. 147, No. 40 — October 5, 2013</a> published proposal on Light Bulb Regulations to be effective as from Jan 1 2014,<br />and the <a href="http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/regulations-codes-standards/12342">invitation to comment</a> by December 19th.<br /><br /><br />Below is seen section 3 of the following:<br /><br /><b>1. Why Alignment to USA will also ban Halogens<br />2. What is good for Canadian Industry, Jobs and Consumers?<br />3. How Incandescents have particular Advantages for Canadians<br />4. Simple Incandescent Advantages versus Halogens <br />5. On Energy saving for the Nation<br />6. On Emission saving for the Planet<br />7. On Money saving for the People<br />8. Worldwide Policy and Major Manufacturers<br />9. Alternative Policies targeting Light Bulbs<br />10.Incandescents - the Real Green Bulbs?</b><br /><br />Full version:&nbsp; <a href="http://ceolas.net/Docs/Reply_Canada_Light_Bulb_Proposal_Jan1_2014_P7.docx">As Doc</a> &nbsp; &nbsp;<a href="http://ceolas.net/Docs/Reply_Canada_Light_Bulb_Proposal_Jan1_2014_P7.pdf">As PDF</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><big><b>3. How Incandescents have particular advantages for Canadians</b></big><br /><br />First, a summary of general advantages of Incandescents, then particular advantages to Canadians.<br /><br /><br /><b>General incandescent advantages</b><br /><br />A high quality 100% CRI (color rendering index) light with a warm characteristic: Incandescent lights have a smooth broad light spectrum, which in ordinary light bulbs rises more towards the red end, giving the characteristic warm glow, increased on dimming (fluorescent and LED lights give out different types of light...LEDs also in car headlamps, bicycle lights, flashlights/torches, sees an often bluey omnidirectionally weaker but point source glare type of lighting taking over in society).<br /><br />The light bulbs have for many a pleasing simple appearance, and the transparency sparkle effect makes their use in some lamps, lanterns, and chandeliers attractive. <br />They are versatile with dimmers and sensors, advantageous where vibration or rough use is expected, and in very hot or cold conditions when they are also quick to come on. Moreover, the heat of the light bulbs (of itself often useful) finds direct applications in space heating applications, greenhouses, hatcheries, pet keeping etc.<br />Converse arguments note the situational disadvantages in particular of CFLs, for example in recessed and enclosed fixtures or humid (bathroom) situations<br /><br /><br /><b><br />The brightness issue</b><br /><br />Small and standard size incandescent lights are particularly useful, since CFL or LED equivalents usually can't be made as bright, and when they can they are even more expensive than usual.<br /><br />The early ban on small/standard 100 Watt bulbs is therefore particularly ironic, added to by any future absence of halogens.<br />Such bulbs have especially good and cheap brightness as well as heat benefit, with 100W bulbs being at the same low price as other bulbs (and yes, that is also a reason they "must" be banned quickly based on what people might otherwise want to buy, such that big "savings" can be announced instead).<br /><br />Fluorescent and LED lights, often dim to start with, also dim more with age, shortening lab quoted lifespans. <br />Fluorescent encapsulation (with pear shaped outer envelope, recommended for close use) further reduces brightness, similarly the phosphorescent covering of LEDs to spread the point-source lighting reduces brightness in any direction.<br />Cheap Chinese imports, directly or for assembly and rebranding, also mean that brightness retention, lifespan and other issues remain with these lights.<br />Any older reader might like (or not like) to note that not only do older eyes need brighter light, but ageing also means yellowing eye lenses so that they absorb the greater blue light component of fluorescents and LEDs, making them appear still dimmer.<br />Je vous souhaite la retraite agréable.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Safety issues</b><br /><br />Normally products are banned for being unsafe to use.<br />The irony here is that old and thereby well known bulbs in their safety are forcibly, albeit gradually, replaced by CFL and LED bulbs with several health, safety, and environmental concerns.<br />There is little point in going through the concerns here which can easily be found in online discussion and documentation - <br />especially regarding fluorescent lighting mercury and radiation concerns, which after all also influenced the 2 year regulatory delay in Canada. Those issues have of course not simply gone away, including accidental breakage of CFLs and their recycling as alternative to being dumped (and with some calls for LED recycling too, see below).<br />A point of irony is the light bulb heat issue.<br />Irony, because politicians and journalists and indeed the info sheets from the OEE (Canada Gov office of energy efficiency) love to say how incandescents "waste 90-95% of their energy as heat", never a word that CFLs also waste 70-80% and current LEDs 50-70% of their energy this way.<br />Irony, because while much incandescent heat is radiated externally to potential use, CFL and LED is internalized, with unpredictable fire risk, especially of CFLs (incandescent heat being more noticeable in burning lampshades and the like, to warn users).<br /><br />Not only do incandescents often usefully release around 95% of their energy as heat:<br />Proponents conveniently "forget" to add that CFLs and LEDs really waste energy as heat, CFLs 80% and LEDs 70%.<br />That is because the CFL/LED heat is internalized, to give a greater, unseen, unpredictable fire risk, particularly with CFLs (incandescent heat being more noticeable, to warn users).<br /><br />A brief further word on <b>LEDs</b>, as the touted catch-all replacement product.<br />Just to mention 2 aspects and 2 institutional references.<br />The official French health agency ANSES in a 2010 multi-disciplinary study highlighted point source glare and blue light radiation issues and various side-effects, echoed by several other studies, and unusually in a repeat call 2013 complained to the Commission that nothing was being done.<br />Similarly the Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of California, USA has been involved in several multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional and international (Korea) studies concerning the toxicity and environmental effects of LEDs, including depletetion of rare earth minerals, and calling for recycling as with CFLs.<br /><br /><br /><br />Certainly, new technology should be welcomed for its advantages.<br />But it does not necessitate banning the old - it seems remarkably hard for politicians to understand that manufacturers themselves can and do move on the new products, without the necessity of bans, and that there are many other ways both of reducing energy consumption in general and of enhancing energy saving product purchase in particular.<br /><br />Progress is welcomed - not feared.<br />True progressive politics brings more choice and more advantages, a progress helped - not hindered - by allowing competition against that which already exists.<br /><br />Politicians love to keep saying how "energy saving products are getting better and cheaper all the time".<br />Good.<br />Then presumably people might actually buy them - voluntarily - while still allowing niche special use of "old" varieties.<br />We've witnessed an incandescent to solid state switchover before - and with the same GE, Philips etc companies.<br />The audio version. Incandescent audio tubes to solid state (LED-like) transistors.<br />Now then: If that had been today, then worldwide the call would have been to ban the "energy guzzling" audio tubes.<br />Which in turn would have prevented rock era tube amps and other niche audio processing developments.<br />Politicians set energy cut-off standards thinking they just ban existing products. But they also ban what might have existed, and never will.<br /><br />Ergo:<br />New lighting is better - why ban old lighting, no point<br />New lighting is not better - why ban old lighting, no point<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><center><b>Incandescent advantages for Canadians</b></center><br /><br /><b>(i) Canadian homes tend to be big in international comparison, with more light bulbs:</b><br /><br />Canadian around 35 light points per home, EU average 20-25 (less in Southern Europe), USA 40-45 <br /><br />Thereby:<br />• Increased variety of conditions where different lights are useful, so a ban on any lighting type is felt more. <br />• More individual rooms and lamps with lights that are not often used - reducing supposed running cost savings after buying expensive "energy saving" lighting<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>(ii) Canadians have a higher need and usage of lighting itself:</b><br /><br />• Increased time indoors, including at home, because the homes are bigger, better and more comfortable, related both to the cooler climate and to a greater household wealth, compared with most other countries.<br />• Increased time indoors, including at home or other situations where the lighting can be chosen, because of colder climate and also because the dark winter season is only partially offset by summer brightness for working Canadians outside vacation times, when some rooms will likely still need to be lit up fairly early<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>(iii) Canadians more often have cold conditions that can affect the lighting used:</b><br /><br />• Incandescent lights come on quickly in the cold. While nowadays CFLs have little delay in ordinary conditions, that does not apply in cold conditions. <br />LEDs also are more sensitive to ambient temperatures (both hot and cold performance deterioration).<br />• Cool or cold conditions can combine with other usage factors unsuitable to other lighting, like incompatibility with sensor systems and/or frequent on-off switching, as with hallway and passage areas, bathrooms, outdoor porch and garage lights.<br />On a more curious note, replacing incandescents with other lighting has reportedly seen Canadian traffic lights being obscured by snow in wintertime, whereas beforehand the incandescent heat would keep the lights clear.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>(iv) Canadians particularly benefit from the light bulb heat effect:</b><br /><br />• The heat effect, of which more later, gives an overall reduction of energy use to maintain room temperature.<br />That is not just from being used more than air-conditioning cooling through the year. Even in the summer, when it is dark, it may be cold enough to turn on room heating. Besides incandescents can be changed as desired if conflicting with air conditioning - and may of course be preferred anyway for their other advantages.<br />• The house insulation factor: Well built Canadian houses that are well insulated, giving a greater light bulb heat benefit compared to more poorly insulated ones elsewhere, as in the UK. The heat from bulbs stays in the room, not escaping through the ceiling.<br />A point of irony is therefore how governments are increasing home insulation schemes to save on heating, while banning bulbs which, proportionate to small energy use of course, would thereby contribute more to such heating.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>(v) Canadians are more likely to enjoy the psychologically warm effect:</b><br /><br />Incandescents tend towards the red end of the spectrum, while unmodified fluorescents and LED lighting have more blue light, cooler in effect.<br />Also, when dimmed, the warm effect of incandescents increases: and people in northern countries like Canada or Nordic Europe are more likely to entertain others in their homes for say dinner parties, possibly also for cultural reasons. <br />Compare with warmer regions where people go out more to socialize, have no control over such lighting used, and barely use their own home lighting that they can control.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>(vi) Canadians are more likely to enjoy bright light:</b><br /><br />Having longer darker winters, and generally with less bright conditions than more tropical locations.<br />100W+ bright equivalent lighting is less easy to make in fluorescent or LED bulb form, is not often available for general household use, and is particularly expensive when it is (and is still not widely possible omnidirectionally with LED bulbs).<br />The importance is also seen from the existence of SAD, Seasonal Affective Disorder in Northern countries generally, where the lack of light during winter months plays a role as seen from the bright light phototherapy treatment that is involved.<br /><br />[ Sections 4 to 10 can be seen via doc or pdf download, see top of this page]<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a> <br />14 points, referenced: <br />Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs. <br />&nbsp;http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/12/canada-and-nordic-countries.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-986843860872900782Wed, 11 Dec 2013 01:55:00 +00002013-12-23T13:11:27.169-05:00Campaigns/PetitionsCanadaEmissionsEnergy UseGEHoward BrandstonManufacturer LobbyingOsram/SylvaniaPhilipsCanada to adopt more US Laws beginning with Light Bulbs: Losing Industry, Jobs and Choice, with Hardly any Savings<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a> <br />Last updated December 23<br />Update info: Campaign against the ban by Federal MP (Government Conservative party) Cheryl Gallant of Ontario, blog <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/12/canadian-mp-cheryl-gallants-campaign-to.html">post</a> about it (December 23). <br />Also Section 1 of the Document revised, consequent (P7 version) updates also done to Doc and PDF links below.<br /><br /><br />The below constitutes a reply to the Canadian Natural Resources Government Ministry, Office of Energy Efficiency, concerning the <a href="http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2013/2013-10-05/html/reg6-eng.html">Canada Gazette Vol. 147, No. 40 — October 5, 2013</a> published proposal on Light Bulb Regulations to be effective as from Jan 1 2014,<br />and the <a href="http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/regulations-codes-standards/12342">invitation to comment</a><br /><br />Email: equipment@nrcan.gc.ca Telephone: 613-996-4359<br />John Cockburn, Director Equipment Division Office of Energy Efficiency Natural Resources Canada CEF, Building 3, Observatory Crescent, 1st Floor<br />Ottawa, Ontario Fax: 613-947-5286<br />But best to also contact local media etc. Media very quiet on this. <br /><br /><br />What Canadians are not being told about January 1 2014 Light Bulb Regulations <br /><br /><big><b>Enforcing US Law: <br />Losing Independence, Industry, Jobs and Choice, <br />with Hardly any Savings and Hardly any Halogens.</b></big><br /><br /><br />In a seemingly hastily written October proposal, just in time to invite standard 75 day comment by December 19 <br />(leaving little time for any subsequent serious analysis, should perchance the Cabinet be interested in doing so), <br />Canadians are told that by aligning to USA standards Halogen bulbs, similar to regular incandescent bulbs, will not be banned.<br /><br />They will.<br />And that's just the start.<br /><br /><br /><b>1. Why Alignment to USA will also ban Halogens</b><br />The supposedly allowed Halogens banned on USA EISA tier 2 2014-2017 backstop final rule equating to CFL standard. Following Washington means following any other change they make. Proposal already envisages further restrictions.<br /><b>2. What is good for Canadian Industry, Jobs and Consumers?</b><br />Light bulbs stated as the first of more US laws in manufacture and service to harmonise NAFTA standards. Allowing US based corporate access does not mean having to legislate against local production to local desire.<br /><b>3. How Incandescents have particular Advantages for Canadians</b><br />Beyond heat, also brightness, and situational advantages in large homes where much time spent<br /><b>4. Simple Incandescent Advantages versus Halogens</b> <br />Halogens more complex and expensive for little savings advantage, hence unpopular in free choice either with consumers or politicians.<br /><b>5. On Energy saving for the Nation</b><br />Fractional overall and on comparative policies, and a main off-peak time use avails of surplus production capacity anyway.<br /><b>6. On Emission saving for the Planet</b><br />Ditto, with the addition that Canada has 86% emission-free electricity and that emissions may increase on heat replacement effect<br /><b>7. On Money saving for the People</b><br />Ditto, with the addition that free choice is not always about money saving, that many bulbs are not often used, and that subsidies plus utility compensation may mean higher bulb and electricity payments anyway via tax or electricity bills.<br /><b>8. Worldwide Policy and Major Manufacturers</b><br />Cooperation to enforce low lifespan on incandescent bulbs followed by cooperation to altogether ban such now patent-expired generic cheap competition. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.<br /><b>9. Alternative Policies targeting Light Bulbs</b><br />Information, taxation/subsidy and market competitive alternatives could and should be considered before bans. <br /><b>10. Incandescents - the Real Green Bulbs?</b><br />Efficient, earth saving, long lasting and sustainable.<br />The simplest way to produce bright light from electricity banned for being too popular, by the stupidity that passes for global governance.<br /><br />Full version:&nbsp; <a href="http://ceolas.net/Docs/Reply_Canada_Light_Bulb_Proposal_Jan1_2014_P7.docx">As Doc</a> &nbsp; &nbsp;<a href="http://ceolas.net/Docs/Reply_Canada_Light_Bulb_Proposal_Jan1_2014_P7.pdf">As PDF</a><br />Parts 1-3 reproduced below<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>1. Why Alignment to USA will also ban Halogens</b><br /><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">USA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007/Title III/Subtitle B/Section 321 <br /><br />"The Secretary of Energy shall report to Congress on the time frame for commercialization of lighting to replace incandescent <b>and halogen</b> incandescent lamp technology"<br /></blockquote><br />A backstop final rule relates to a cycle of rulemaking that will start in 2014.<br /><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">" BACKSTOP REQUIREMENT— if the <b>final rule</b> [not later than January 1, 2017] <b>does not </b>produce savings that are greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt, effective beginning January 1, 2020, the Secretary shall prohibit the sale of any general service lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt"<br /></blockquote><br />As the Energy Information Administration at the Department of Energy puts it, the second tier of energy efficiency improvements “<i>at the latest becomes effective by 2020, essentially requiring general service bulbs to be as efficient as today's CFLs</i>"<br /><br /><br />The stated main purpose of the current light bulb proposal is to align with US legislation. <br />Comparatively, the original MEPS legislation can be seen at <a href="http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-94-651/">SOR/94-651</a> part 1 Items 136-139 with luminous flux based definitions (unfortunately not shown or linked in the proposal). The US wattage based regulations were previously deliberately avoided, citing several disadvantages with the US system including less bright bulbs being allowed in place of brighter ones, usage of higher wattage class defeating the purpose etc. This is not mentioned now in changing standards.<br /><br />The proposed adoption of USA law is justified as facilitating company product development and distribution to a bigger market, now and in the future, and is to be followed by similar adoption of US law for other products for the same reasons.<br />With light bulbs a further highlighted beneficial effect is said to be that American standards will allow incandescents in the form of Halogens, albeit still with differences to simple incandescents and a lot more expensive.<br />However, not only would some higher energy efficiency halogen types not have been banned anyway under the originally proposed legislation, but as seen current USA legislation bans all incandescent technology including touted halogen replacements for general service lighting, EISA tier 2 2014-2017 45 lumen per Watt final rule which equates to fluorescent bulb standard. Replacement Halogens at 18 lumen per Watt, 20-22 at best, are way below that. <br />The notion that manufacturers would improve halogens falls on commercial consideration (as they at length explained in the November 25 EU meeting and documentation), and for example Philips already quietly dropped promised EcoVantage development once the 2009 EU ban had been achieved.<br /><br />Aligning with US legislation of course means that <b>guarantees about what will or won't be allowed can no longer be given</b>.<br /><br />To reply that<br />"Canada will just adopt the first (USA Tier 1) levels and won't ban Halogens even if the USA does", <br />is not in keeping with proposal's purpose and argumentation of aligning with USA standards in the first place, including the specifically stated supposed advantages of suppliers not having to deal with two standards for products.<br /><br />Notice also that 45 lumen per watt is a minimum standard and is set to be followed by others (USA background documentation talks of Tier 3 in 2020).<br />Notice also that these are and would be technology-neutral standards.<br />So the splitting up of different products for distribution becomes more difficult anyway, and of course all the more so should further USA rules not be to Canadian taste.<br /><br />45 lumen per watt is as said based on fluorescent lamps that are going out of political favour, and the hitherto mercury-exception of fluorescent lamps may come to be abolished, if they don't disappear from markets beforehand given recent decreases of allowable mercury levels in some jurisdictions like the EU, which make them less commercially viable to sell. <br />Of course those who criticise bans on incandescent bulbs might be pleased, should the CFL (fluorescent, "energy saving") bulbs disappear. But that would be on top of banning incandescents, and would hardly happen until other replacements have found political (if not popular) replacement favor.<br /><br />The big noise in the world of lighting regulation is "Ledification", Japan aiming for a total switch by 2020 and the European Commission in current talks with manufacturer representatives in dealing with the timing of banning halogens and pushing a LED switchover.<br />[LEDs certainly have energy efficiency advantages, but are also very difficult to make as bright omnidirectional incandescent bulb replacements at low prices, along with having a number of health and environmental concerns of their own as covered later. The simple fact is that all lighting types have advantages and disadvantages, and bans of any should surely be approached with caution. The main distinctive technology advantages are of incandescents as bulbs, fluorescents as long tubes and LEDs as sheets - which is also how the latter 2 were first developed]<br /><br />Notice how all this is applicable to any aligning to allow Washington to dictate what Canadians can or can't buy, and which may or may not be to Canadian taste, not just with light bulbs, and not just with energy efficiency regulations, given the stated ambition to expand such regulatory alignment and favour multinationals in their North American product development and future distribution of products (see section 2 on industry policy below).<br /><br />Alternatively, the Canada Government knows about and plans a future ban on halogens.<br />It is after all true to say that "halogens will still be allowed" - for now.<br />They would also be <b>doing exactly what USA, EU, and Australia ruling officials did before them: <br />Wave funny bulbs around to visibly show they were "doing something" about global warming, while "assuring" everybody that "lookalike halogens" to traditional bulbs would still be allowed</b><br />It would also seem strange if Canadian lawmakers did not know US law before shifting to it.<br /><br /><br />The proposal finishes, perhaps with admirable openness:<br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">"...over time, it is anticipated that the <b>proposed standards would help to increase the level of acceptability</b> for MEPS [Minimum Energy Performance Standards] for many Canadians, thus <b>facilitating the adoption of further MEPS for these</b> and other products in the future."<br /></blockquote><br />Put the frog into boiling water - it jumps out.<br />Put the frog into cold water and keep heating it - the frog is cooked <br />"How to Cook our Canadians"<br /><br />So, Canadian Cabinet...how about the Canadian public not being duped about "what is allowed"?<br /><br /><br />In this regard, one should also be aware of how regulations are coordinated and arranged to achieve a desired purpose (read, ban completion).<br />Jurisdictions like Canada, EU, USA and Australia are in close contact as seen from background documentation to legislation and international meetings between energy agency officials and major manufacturer representatives.<br /><br />Regulations are therefore divided into Tier 1 and Tier 2 processes. <br />The original 2012 Canada plans also had a Tier 2 2015 phase-out intention.<br />Staggered implementation is of course understandable in cushioning the effect both for manufacturers and consumers as new technology is introduced. <br />However that also allows - or should allow - unbiased monitoring of the effects on consumers of lighting availability and quality, and that supposed energy saving actually takes place. <br />But follow-ups are no fun for politicians - promises are. The typically and suitably long-term savings projections also apply for Canada (2025, see the proposal annex) allowing catchy quotable big savings figures, and then to say "Well, buddy, we'll check on that in 2025"! Brilliant - the decision makers long since having retired.<br />Suggested evaluation based on just measuring assumed savings from how products have been adopted (handy for the backing companies, who don't have to pay for that research themselves!) is hardly the same - and misses the overall consumer impact.<br />In BureaucratSpeak, "stakeholders" aren't any guys and gals strolling around Queen Street in Toronto.<br /><br />Both the EU and the USA have 2014 review processes: <br />These should therefore have meant a neutral assessment of Tier 1.But as the continued bans are already written into legislation, the reviews are mainly about alternative lamps and possible change in the timing of Tier 2 implementation. Talk about a 1-way street.<br /><br />As for the USA, it's not just that halogens are legislated to disappear sometime before 2020. The Obama administration in cooperation with the Democrat controlled Senate Energy Committee already tried to tighten lamp and other energy efficiency regulations in 2011. But as with many bills, it did not make it through Congress. Lowering the standards requires Congress passage, and the President's signature. Hardly anytime soon.<br /><br />A further possible reason why the officials writing the laws want Tier 2 bans already legislated in place, is the difficulty and nuisance of having to revisit the issue in public or parliamentary debate.<br />US law is of course already difficult to alter as just noted, and this applies also in the 28 nation and multi-institutional EU.<br /><br />Canada is different, and could be different, in openly considering what is right or wrong, and not just for multinational corporations.<br /><br /><br />The proposal here does commendably invite public comment.... <br />but why is it kept away from Canadian Parliament for debate, all the more so since proposal comment finishes Dec 19, with MPs already being off looking for turkeys and tourtières on the 13th and not back until Jan 27?<br />The government cabinet rubberstamping American legislation into place over the holiday period surely sets a bad precedent if it hasn't done so already, given the mentioned ramifications.<br /><br /><br />The bigger picture about the light bulb regulations is not any guarantee about halogens.<br /><b>The bigger picture is about why light bulb ban regulation is necessary in the first place - and particularly in Canada.</b><br /><br />Canada has no obligation to ban either halogens or simple incandescents.<br />This was shown in already delaying ban implementation. <br />Canada is - still - an independent country.<br />If it is not in the interest of Canada, Canadian business, Canadian jobs, or Canadian consumers to ban lighting products on other than safety grounds, then it should not be done. <br /><br />And it isn't...<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><big><b>2. What is good for Canadian Industry, Jobs and Consumers?</b></big><br /><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">"This proposed amendment would support the Government’s regulatory policy of aligning with American standards, where feasible"<br />"it is anticipated that the proposed standards would help to increase the level of acceptability for MEPS for many Canadians, thus facilitating the adoption of further MEPS for these and other products in the future."<br />"compliance risks are much less than they would be if Canada had unique standards. Canada would benefit from the compliance regime that is in place to support U.S. standards."<br /></blockquote><br />Adoption of US standards for many more products - not just concerning energy efficiency - is set to continue.<br />The US dominance on the North American market hardly means Washington adopting Ottawa standards.<br /><br />This does not just sideline Canadian autonomy for its own sake.<br />It means no longer making products to specific Canadian demands, should they conflict with American desire.<br /><br />So, should the border just be shut, to only have "Canadian products for Canadians"?<br />No, the point is not the protectionism angle.<br />The point is that allowing American standard products in Canada, does not mean having to ban products made to specific Canadian demand and desire.<br />Manufacturers can still make American standard products both for internal market or export, as they wish.<br /><br />Presumably if the American standard is so attractive for the major multinationals for market reasons, then they'll make to that standard, and leave the smaller specific Canada demand to Canadian suppliers.<br />They don't "have to suffer regulatory burden by making products to 2 standards", as the proposal basically puts it.<br /><br /><br />This is therefore about a lot more than light bulbs, it is about any product that because of climate, geography, culture, or other reason might be of value to Canadian consumers.<br /><br />Legally, in a case of regulatory conflict between the Canada and USA standards,<br />if a Canadian requirement is deemed less stringent, that is obviously not a problem - the point here.<br />If a Canadian requirement is more stringent, perhaps on environmental or safety grounds, that is still justified on Canadian rights as a sovereign country.<br /><br />The Government proposal at hand is overly focused on helping major manufacturers sell in both countries, repeatedly stating so. <br />Maybe some more widespread consideration is justified.<br /><br />Yet even on such narrowly defined market-minded economic justification for bowing to Washington, the question is if it's a good policy.<br /><br />To keep <b>adopting US standards will likely cost Canadian supply and distribution jobs</b>,<br />especially of already existing standards as supply and distribution to those standards is already well established on the bigger US market, but also of simultaneously applied standards, as larger US based suppliers simply extend the reach for their products.<br /><br />Conversely, while still allowing such free trade movement of goods, <br /><b>the freedom of manufacture to local needs gives local jobs and locally satisfied consumers</b>. <br />Also if <b>Americans are not making or distributing such products</b> then clearly <b>all the better for Canadian jobs</b>.<br /><br /><br />Turning now specifically to energy efficiency regulations, such as on <b>light bulbs</b>, <br />the <b>relevance of what has been said is even greater,</b> on several counts.<br /><br />Firstly, by adopting US legislation, USA based control becomes even more likely - after all, their manufacturers and distributors have had regulatory knowledge and established implementation for several years on any such regulatory shift. With the light bulbs, that's <b>7 years knowledge and 2 years implementation for the US rivals</b>.<br />After all, the proposal makes much of how manufacturers prepare for standards in advance (and, conversely, if anything, Canadian suppliers prepared for the wrong MEPS standard).<br /><br />Secondly, how big is current and assumed future Canadian light bulb production anyway?<br />While I have been unable to find figures (and, again, the proposal could have supplied them!) it presumably mirrors the USA and EU in dominant Chinese CFL/LED imports and dwindling local incandescent/halogen manufacture.<br />Maybe it's great to help the Chinese (as also outsourced by Philips. GE or Osram-Sylvania) but surely not of utmost importance, and on the distribution side that again comes down to likely American control on a unified market for reasons given.<br /><br />Thirdly, with energy efficiency regulations it need not be USA versus Canada standards.<br />Not having energy efficiency regulations in the first place opens up to true manufacturer freedom without the "regulatory burden" that the proposal worries so much about.<br />That obviously need defending of itself, and will be done for light bulbs, but one should also be well aware of what it would mean for industrial policy and jobs, given the industry focus in the proposal.<br /><br />The tone of the proposal is of abandoning regulations with threatened chaos.<br />But it is just to continue without implementation, and with manufacturer and consumer freedom.<br />A freedom that allows the start up of making popular bulbs, that hasn't hitherto happened given threatened regulation.<br /><br /><br />The popularity of bulbs to be banned (phased out, regulated..) is hardly in doubt.<br />If they were not popular, there would be no "need" to ban them and celebrate the supposed savings.<br />There are in fact <b>many reasons why it is both easy and attractive to set up local small/new Canadian manufacture and sale with associated jobs of traditional light bulbs</b>. <br />Firstly in being <b>popular</b>, as mentioned.<br />Secondly in being <b>simple and easy to make</b>.<br />Thirdly in being <b>generic patent-free</b> bulbs without licensing requirement from major manufacturers (now guess why GE/Philips/Osram-Sylvania want those bulbs banned).<br />Finally, in being <b>without competition</b> from America, and with likely little competition from anywhere else - while always allowing alternative "energy saving" bulb manufacture and sale as desired on the market.<br />Canada could have a considerable domestic light bulb industry of incandescent lighting.<br />Can the same be said about CFLs or LEDs?<br /><br /><br /><br />Responding to the idea that regulations might actually not be imposed, the proposal suggests:<br /><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">"Canada could become susceptible to product dumping from manufacturers from other countries seeking to sell traditional incandescent light bulbs no longer permitted in their own country."<br /></blockquote><br />This repeats what they said 2008 in defending the first MEPS regulations.<br />But bans have now already been legislated in many other jurisdictions (rationale later) and the proposal itself emphasizes how manufacturers prepare for them.<br />So the notion that those guys have been stockpiling incandescents on-the-side, just to dump on Canada in case Canada does not implement a ban, hardly holds.<br />Besides, Canadians would get more choice, and would have to want to buy them in the first place - "terrible" if they can buy what they want?<br />Finally, any dumping problem can always be met by import controls - it does not necessitate, nor does it justify, banning what people want to buy.<br /><br /><br />Two further justifications are given for not abandoning regulations:<br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">"Suppliers to the Canadian light bulb market have already made considerable investments in research, development and retooling to meet the MEPS as written in 2008. <br />Canadian retailers have begun selling, promoting, and educating consumers about more efficient bulbs."<br /></blockquote><br />As for Canadian <b>retailers</b>,<br />I am sure they would be delighted to sell whatever Canadians want to buy.<br />Educating about "efficient bulbs" - that presumably means bulbs efficient in producing bright light using few components? <br />No? Well, that just shows how politically correct language is defined - handily substituting "efficient" for "energy efficient"<br />(as with calling fluorescent bulbs "energy saving" bulbs:<br />Hello Mr Retailer, can I have one of those Energy Wasting bulbs please? Ah, gosh, thanks very much!)<br /><br />As for <b>suppliers</b> to the market,<br />the odd notion is this invitation to cry for them when they now instead have full freedom to make and supply what they want - including the bulbs they prepared for.<br />Compare with if they had been busy preparing to sell a bulb that was then made illegal!<br /><br />The manufacturers were perfectly free themselves to stop selling incandescents if "they are so bad for the planet", as their press releases keep saying, and the media keeps swallowing. After all - the same GE/Philips and other companies stopped making record players, cassettes, 8-tracks and much else in the name of "progress". <br />But "unfortunately", others would make the popular bulbs if they stopped!<br />No manufacturer/distributor should rely on bans on competition to shift product they presumably have some sort of confidence and ability to sell. <br />Besides, the big American market would still have the limited competition they want.<br /><br />Moreover, if the suppliers were preparing for the Canadian standard, "MEPS as written in 2008" and it "is a burden to make and distribute to both American and Canadian standard", well, then the suppliers have been preparing for the wrong standard, with Canada Gov now pulling the rug from under their feet! <br />Also, the fact that simple traditional light bulbs are easy to make means those guys can easily "retool" and make them too, and have the limited competition from USA on that score as already described.<br />Don't cry for me, Argentina.<br /><br /><br />For deeper discussion of industrial policy and manufacturers, <b>see section 8</b><br /><br />Meanwhile, do these bulbs really have any value for Canadians?.....<br /><br /><br /><br /><big><b>3. How Incandescents have particular advantages for Canadians</b></big><br /><br />First, a summary of general advantages of Incandescents, then particular advantages to Canadians, and afterwards, a look at simple incandescent advantages vis-à-vis Halogens.<br /><br /><b>General incandescent advantages</b><br /><br />A high quality 100% CRI (color rendering index) light with a warm characteristic: Incandescent lights have a smooth broad light spectrum, which in ordinary light bulbs rises more towards the red end, giving the characteristic warm glow, increased on dimming (fluorescent and LED lights give out different types of light...LEDs also in car headlamps, bicycle lights, flashlights/torches, sees an often bluey omnidirectionally weaker but point source glare type of lighting taking over in society).<br /><br />The light bulbs have for many a pleasing simple appearance, and the transparency sparkle effect makes their use in some lamps, lanterns, and chandeliers attractive. <br />They are versatile with dimmers and sensors, advantageous where vibration or rough use is expected, and in very hot or cold conditions when they are also quick to come on. Moreover, the heat of the light bulbs (of itself often useful) finds direct applications in space heating applications, greenhouses, hatcheries, pet keeping etc.<br />Converse arguments note the situational disadvantages in particular of CFLs, for example in recessed and enclosed fixtures or humid (bathroom) situations<br /><br /><br /><b><br />The brightness issue</b><br /><br />Small and standard size incandescent lights are particularly useful, since CFL or LED equivalents usually can't be made as bright, and when they can they are even more expensive than usual.<br /><br />The early ban on small/standard 100 Watt bulbs is therefore particularly ironic, added to by any future absence of halogens.<br />Such bulbs have especially good and cheap brightness as well as heat benefit, with 100W bulbs being at the same low price as other bulbs (and yes, that is also a reason they "must" be banned quickly based on what people might otherwise want to buy, such that big "savings" can be announced instead).<br /><br />Fluorescent and LED lights, often dim to start with, also dim more with age, shortening lab quoted lifespans. <br />Fluorescent encapsulation (with pear shaped outer envelope, recommended for close use) further reduces brightness, similarly the phosphorescent covering of LEDs to spread the point-source lighting reduces brightness in any direction.<br />Cheap Chinese imports, directly or for assembly and rebranding, also mean that brightness retention, lifespan and other issues remain with these lights.<br />Any older reader might like (or not like) to note that not only do older eyes need brighter light, but ageing also means yellowing eye lenses so that they absorb the greater blue light component of fluorescents and LEDs, making them appear still dimmer.<br />Je vous souhaite la retraite agréable.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Safety issues</b><br /><br />Normally products are banned for being unsafe to use.<br />The irony here is that old and thereby well known bulbs in their safety are forcibly, albeit gradually, replaced by CFL and LED bulbs with several health, safety, and environmental concerns.<br />There is little point in going through the concerns here which can easily be found in online discussion and documentation - <br />especially regarding fluorescent lighting mercury and radiation concerns, which after all also influenced the 2 year regulatory delay in Canada. Those issues have of course not simply gone away, including accidental breakage of CFLs and their recycling as alternative to being dumped (and with some calls for LED recycling too, see below).<br />A point of irony is the light bulb heat issue.<br />Irony, because politicians and journalists and indeed the info sheets from the OEE (Canada Gov office of energy efficiency) love to say how incandescents "waste 90-95% of their energy as heat", never a word that CFLs also waste 70-80% and current LEDs 50-70% of their energy this way.<br />Irony, because while much incandescent heat is radiated externally to potential use, CFL and LED is internalized, with unpredictable fire risk, especially of CFLs (incandescent heat being more noticeable in burning lampshades and the like, to warn users).<br /><br />Not only do incandescents often usefully release around 95% of their energy as heat:<br />Proponents conveniently "forget" to add that CFLs and LEDs really waste energy as heat, CFLs 80% and LEDs 70%.<br />That is because the CFL/LED heat is internalized, to give a greater, unseen, unpredictable fire risk, particularly with CFLs (incandescent heat being more noticeable, to warn users).<br /><br />A brief further word on <b>LEDs</b>, as the touted catch-all replacement product.<br />Just to mention 2 aspects and 2 institutional references.<br />The official French health agency ANSES in a 2010 multi-disciplinary study highlighted point source glare and blue light radiation issues and various side-effects, echoed by several other studies, and unusually in a repeat call 2013 complained to the Commission that nothing was being done.<br />Similarly the Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of California, USA has been involved in several multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional and international (Korea) studies concerning the toxicity and environmental effects of LEDs, including depletetion of rare earth minerals, and calling for recycling as with CFLs.<br /><br /><br /><br />Certainly, new technology should be welcomed for its advantages.<br />But it does not necessitate banning the old - it seems remarkably hard for politicians to understand that manufacturers themselves can and do move on the new products, without the necessity of bans, and that there are many other ways both of reducing energy consumption in general and of enhancing energy saving product purchase in particular.<br /><br />Progress is welcomed - not feared.<br />True progressive politics brings more choice and more advantages, a progress helped - not hindered - by allowing competition against that which already exists.<br /><br />Politicians love to keep saying how "energy saving products are getting better and cheaper all the time".<br />Good.<br />Then presumably people might actually buy them - voluntarily - while still allowing niche special use of "old" varieties.<br />We've witnessed an incandescent to solid state switchover before - and with the same GE, Philips etc companies.<br />The audio version. Incandescent audio tubes to solid state (LED-like) transistors.<br />Now then: If that had been today, then worldwide the call would have been to ban the "energy guzzling" audio tubes.<br />Which in turn would have prevented rock era tube amps and other niche audio processing developments.<br />Politicians set energy cut-off standards thinking they just ban existing products. But they also ban what might have existed, and never will.<br /><br />Ergo:<br />New lighting is better - why ban old lighting, no point<br />New lighting is not better - why ban old lighting, no point<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><center><b>Incandescent advantages for Canadians</b></center><br /><br /><b>(i) Canadian homes tend to be big in international comparison, with more light bulbs:</b><br /><br />Canadian around 35 light points per home, EU average 20-25 (less in Southern Europe), USA 40-45 <br /><br />Thereby:<br />• Increased variety of conditions where different lights are useful, so a ban on any lighting type is felt more. <br />• More individual rooms and lamps with lights that are not often used - reducing supposed running cost savings after buying expensive "energy saving" lighting<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>(ii) Canadians have a higher need and usage of lighting itself:</b><br /><br />• Increased time indoors, including at home, because the homes are bigger, better and more comfortable, related both to the cooler climate and to a greater household wealth, compared with most other countries.<br />• Increased time indoors, including at home or other situations where the lighting can be chosen, because of colder climate and also because the dark winter season is only partially offset by summer brightness for working Canadians outside vacation times, when some rooms will likely still need to be lit up fairly early<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>(iii) Canadians more often have cold conditions that can affect the lighting used:</b><br /><br />• Incandescent lights come on quickly in the cold. While nowadays CFLs have little delay in ordinary conditions, that does not apply in cold conditions. <br />LEDs also are more sensitive to ambient temperatures (both hot and cold performance deterioration).<br />• Cool or cold conditions can combine with other usage factors unsuitable to other lighting, like incompatibility with sensor systems and/or frequent on-off switching, as with hallway and passage areas, bathrooms, outdoor porch and garage lights.<br />On a more curious note, replacing incandescents with other lighting has reportedly seen Canadian traffic lights being obscured by snow in wintertime, whereas beforehand the incandescent heat would keep the lights clear.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>(iv) Canadians particularly benefit from the light bulb heat effect:</b><br /><br />• The heat effect, of which more later, gives an overall reduction of energy use to maintain room temperature.<br />That is not just from being used more than air-conditioning cooling through the year. Even in the summer, when it is dark, it may be cold enough to turn on room heating. Besides incandescents can be changed as desired if conflicting with air conditioning - and may of course be preferred anyway for their other advantages.<br />• The house insulation factor: Well built Canadian houses that are well insulated, giving a greater light bulb heat benefit compared to more poorly insulated ones elsewhere, as in the UK. The heat from bulbs stays in the room, not escaping through the ceiling.<br />A point of irony is therefore how governments are increasing home insulation schemes to save on heating, while banning bulbs which, proportionate to small energy use of course, would thereby contribute more to such heating.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>(v) Canadians are more likely to enjoy the psychologically warm effect:</b><br /><br />Incandescents tend towards the red end of the spectrum, while unmodified fluorescents and LED lighting have more blue light, cooler in effect.<br />Also, when dimmed, the warm effect of incandescents increases: and people in northern countries like Canada or Nordic Europe are more likely to entertain others in their homes for say dinner parties, possibly also for cultural reasons. <br />Compare with warmer regions where people go out more to socialize, have no control over such lighting used, and barely use their own home lighting that they can control.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>(vi) Canadians are more likely to enjoy bright light:</b><br /><br />Having longer darker winters, and generally with less bright conditions than more tropical locations.<br />100W+ bright equivalent lighting is less easy to make in fluorescent or LED bulb form, is not often available for general household use, and is particularly expensive when it is (and is still not widely possible omnidirectionally with LED bulbs).<br />The importance is also seen from the existence of SAD, Seasonal Affective Disorder in Northern countries generally, where the lack of light during winter months plays a role as seen from the bright light phototherapy treatment that is involved.<br /><br />[ Sections 4 to 10 can be seen via doc or pdf download, see top of this page]<br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a> <br />14 points, referenced: <br />Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs. <br />&nbsp;http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/12/o-canada-how-aligning-to-us-law-will.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-8204459586730478474Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:09:00 +00002013-12-23T09:17:56.571-05:00EUGEHistoryLEDOsram/SylvaniaPhilips Learning from History: Audio Incandescent and Solid State <!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> Revision, additions: December 2, November 29 &nbsp; &nbsp; Original Post: November 28<br /><br />The beginning of the EU review of the 2009 light bulb regulations which sees the November 25 launch of the EU (European) Commission alteration proposals has been <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/10/eu-to-delay-ban-for-2-years-on-halogen.html">covered here earlier</a> with extensive analysis.<br />Subsequent posts have covered industry views, mainly LightingEurope (Philips, Osram and other manufacturers).<br /><br />The main recommendation here as part of the first stage 6 review by the Commission, concerning the future of halogen replacements, is to <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/11/eu-allow-frosted-halogen-bulbs.html">allow frosted halogen bulbs</a>, which were not banned for any energy efficiency reason but rather to push sales of CFLs, an outdated legacy ban given that solid-state LEDs exist in both clear and frosted versions and will "be bought more and more" according to both the Commission and its energy efficiency advisers, on the basis of becoming "<b>ever better and cheaper</b>", which rather takes away the whole point of the ban.<br /><br /><br />Compare the close historical relationship to <b>incandescent audio tubes/valves</b>...<br />after all, who are the major light bulb manufacturers?<br /><br /><br /><center><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uO9lGlxLAWw/Upe5VymX7PI/AAAAAAAADQE/IHnsjPy8MNM/s1600/sylvania_tube_ad_660_1288.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img style="padding:0px;" border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uO9lGlxLAWw/Upe5VymX7PI/AAAAAAAADQE/IHnsjPy8MNM/s900/sylvania_tube_ad_660_1288.jpg" /></a><br /><small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 80px;">source &nbsp;<a href="http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/electronics-ads-1920s">vintage ad browser</a></small></small><br /></center><br /><br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-R99Tr3Gd9KA/UpialMcqU_I/AAAAAAAADRc/H0ZNLABf-L0/s1600/Philips-1937_radio_ad_481_671.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-R99Tr3Gd9KA/UpialMcqU_I/AAAAAAAADRc/H0ZNLABf-L0/s600/Philips-1937_radio_ad_481_671.jpg" /></a></div><br /><br /><br /><center><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1Xs22EgH-Fc/UpiX_2YMOYI/AAAAAAAADRA/tERTqPA7Ds0/s1600/osram_tube_163_310.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img style="padding:0px; " border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1Xs22EgH-Fc/UpiX_2YMOYI/AAAAAAAADRA/tERTqPA7Ds0/s150/osram_tube_163_310.jpg" /></a></a> &nbsp; <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--HAnfgGwuBI/UpiYCxgT73I/AAAAAAAADRI/ame4SMNTgc8/s1600/GE_Tube_225_225.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img style="padding:0px; " border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--HAnfgGwuBI/UpiYCxgT73I/AAAAAAAADRI/ame4SMNTgc8/s150/GE_Tube_225_225.jpg" /></a>&nbsp; <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SmPSGEoSp7o/UpiYIsk68bI/AAAAAAAADRQ/7Lg7VetIze4/s1600/philips_tube_side_277_182.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img style="float-left; padding:0px; " border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SmPSGEoSp7o/UpiYIsk68bI/AAAAAAAADRQ/7Lg7VetIze4/s150/philips_tube_side_277_182.jpg" /></a> &nbsp; <br /><br /></center><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OGMrRI2H9go/Upe3uYv45II/AAAAAAAADPo/VsVspKuNqAw/s1600/tube-Radio_front_450-339.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OGMrRI2H9go/Upe3uYv45II/AAAAAAAADPo/VsVspKuNqAw/s200/tube-Radio_front_450-339.jpg" /></a><br />The tubes (structurally like incandescent bulbs) were not banned in radios and other audio equipment when "<b>ever better and cheaper</b>" solid-state transistors (structurally like LE diodes) came along: <b>manufacturers - not governments - supplied energy-efficient market demand</b>.<br /><br /><br />Today's EU Commission would have jumped on top of the "energy-guzzling" tubes.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IbfpnY3hdtM/UpfCyXWr5xI/AAAAAAAADQU/zueCXXB1Xm0/s1600/marshall-guitar-amp_204_247.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img style="padding:0px; float:left; margin-right:2em; margin-left:1em;" border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IbfpnY3hdtM/UpfCyXWr5xI/AAAAAAAADQU/zueCXXB1Xm0/s200/marshall-guitar-amp_204_247.jpg" /></a>Never mind that they have retained niche uses - and launched a rock and roll guitar amplifier age.<br />As with light bulbs, the Killjoy Commission would have been at the forefront of ban implementation to make sure that never happened - which just goes to show that <b>setting usage standards does not just ban existing products - they ban what could have existed, and never will.</b><br />Relating such argument to light bulbs, see the <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-we-will-never-see.html">post</a> "What We Will Never See".<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />So <b>who do the Commission talk to</b> about all this?<br />"<i>Stakeholders</i>".<br />Ordinary people are never seen by the EU as stakeholders. They just have to swallow what's coming to them. <br />In fairness, "everyone can't be heard", but Consultation Forums that fill the room with Energy Agency Yes-Men hardly make for balanced conversation.<br /><br />This is also why alternative views to the EU process have been posted here in recent days.<br /><br /><!-- <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IbfpnY3hdtM/UpfCyXWr5xI/AAAAAAAADQU/zueCXXB1Xm0/s1600/marshall-guitar-amp_204_247.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IbfpnY3hdtM/UpfCyXWr5xI/AAAAAAAADQU/zueCXXB1Xm0/s320/marshall-guitar-amp_204_247.jpg" /></a><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-n3I-5NtXDYo/UpeyrMAHHSI/AAAAAAAADOM/sARLweOQkFg/s1600/amplifier-tube-lamp-250_62.jpeg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-n3I-5NtXDYo/UpeyrMAHHSI/AAAAAAAADOM/sARLweOQkFg/s400/amplifier-tube-lamp-250_62.jpeg" /></a><br /><br /><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R8jPFqkmLy4/Upe3pUFfGXI/AAAAAAAADPg/GPt5zvrZLbg/s1600/RegulatorTubeInOperation_200_273.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R8jPFqkmLy4/Upe3pUFfGXI/AAAAAAAADPg/GPt5zvrZLbg/s400/RegulatorTubeInOperation_200_273.jpg" /></a><br /><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OGMrRI2H9go/Upe3uYv45II/AAAAAAAADPo/VsVspKuNqAw/s1600/tube-Radio_front_450-339.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OGMrRI2H9go/Upe3uYv45II/AAAAAAAADPo/VsVspKuNqAw/s400/tube-Radio_front_450-339.jpg" /></a><br /><br />http://www.trendhunter.com/slideshow/rockin-sound-amplifiers <br />==6 tubes src<br /><br />radio<br />http://www.thevalvepage.com/radios/kolster/lr10/lr10.htm<br /><br />philips radio ad<br />http://www.radio-restoration.com/Philips.html<br /><br />sylvania tube<br />http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/electronics-ads-1920s<br /><br />GE tube image white bg<br /><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--HAnfgGwuBI/UpiYCxgT73I/AAAAAAAADRI/ame4SMNTgc8/s1600/GE_Tube_225_225.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--HAnfgGwuBI/UpiYCxgT73I/AAAAAAAADRI/ame4SMNTgc8/s320/GE_Tube_225_225.jpg" /><br />--><br /><br /><br /><a name="banx"></a> <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a> <br />14 points, referenced: <br />Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs. <br />&nbsp; http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-eu-commission-could-learn-from.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-7778363939518064405Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:02:00 +00002014-06-06T15:35:47.089-04:00About This Blog<br />This blog accompanies the website <a href="http://ceolas.net/">New Electric Politics</a> (http://ceolas.net/).<br /><br /><br /><b>Why is this blog called Freedom Light Bulb?</b><br /><br />The obvious assumption is that this is about individual freedom versus society good.<br />Wrong.<br />This is about individual freedom <i>and</i> what is good for society.<br />On overall energy use as well as on environmental factors, energy standard based bans on simple light bulbs make no sense, as will be shown - while at the same time obviously limiting choice.<br /><br /><br />But this also goes <b>beyond light bulbs</b>.<br />It is about the relationship between individual and society, and further to that, the relationship between citizen, industry, government and environment.<br /><br />It is also about regulations on <i>any</i> product in society:<br /><b>about seeing the advantages that different products have for different uses,<br />rather than to look for disadvantages as reasons for their destruction</b>,<br />including any <b>government mandated "improvement"</b> that unnecessarily affects their advantages, by bureacratic committees setting arbitrary cut-off points for the allowed existence of otherwise safe products - since citizens are otherwise too stupid to buy what committee members and their political promoters think is "right".<br /><br /><b>Progress</b> is welcomed - not feared.<br />Progress brings more choice and more advantages, a progress helped - not hindered - by allowing <b>competition</b> against that which already exists.<br />This gives the best products at the lowest price: including the best energy saving products, since energy saving is a positive marketable advantage.<br /><br />The <b>Big Picture</b> is about the need to save energy in the first place, and if so, about alternative energy sources, about electricity generation, grid upgrades, smart grid technology.<br />It is not about "enlightened politicians" engaging with delighted patent profiting corporations to force feed consumers with new unproven shoddy expensive "Green Technology" they would not otherwise buy, so that the idiot citizens can all save money "in the long run". <br />In the long run they are all dead, and have questionably made savings on what they did not want in the first place. If they had "sufficiently" wanted what is offered instead, the bans would not have been "necessary". <br /><br /><br /><b>The light bulb ban is a good illustration:</b><br /><br />A product ban justified neither on safety grounds or to save energy.<br />A symbolic feel good gesture to save the planet, that also happens to deliver big profits to lobbying manufacturers by destroying a bright and popular but also cheap and patent expired "generic" product, in the name of government defined progress.<br /><br />Government control over citizens - or federal control over states - can be questioned at the best of times. And it can clearly be questioned here.<br /><br />All products have advantages - all have their reason for existence.<br />Even if light bulbs - or buildings, cars, washing machines, refrigerators, TV sets, computers and much else - "needed" government policies for product and resource saving progress, then government supported consumer information or government taxation would still be better, not just to keep choice, but ironically also to save energy, for reasons described and referenced.<br /><br /><br />The website <a href="http://ceolas.net/#li1x">light bulb section</a> more thoroughly lays out why the light bulb regulations are a bad idea, whether to save energy, emissions, or money, or for any of the other reasons held to justify the regulations.<br />This is done mainly with North American, European and Australian references and links, though the principles of course apply everywhere.<br /><br />Given the research behind the website, I am getting news updates and other information that may better be suited to a blog, so will see how it goes.<br /><br />A summary of my position on light bulb regulations can be seen <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/my-position-on-issue.html">here</a><br /><br />For a more comprehensive rundown of reasons why light bulb regulations are wrong, <br />and how consumers hardly save money regardless of energy savings, <br />see the page "<a href="http://freedomlightbulb.org/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a>"<br /><!-- also see the first post here: <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/06/big-deception.html">http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/06/big-deception.html</a> --> &nbsp;http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/06/this-blog-accompanies-website.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1316303495378677857.post-7357546658322613079Fri, 29 Nov 2013 22:39:00 +00002013-12-23T09:18:26.448-05:00Energy UseEUGermanyHalogenKevanShawLEDLight QualityUKUnlisted CountriesKevan Shaw Report: November 25 EU Consultation Forum<!-- <img width="" style="padding:0px; float:right; margin-right:1em; margin-left:2em;" src="" alt="" /> <center><big><b><a href=""></a></b></big></center><big><b></b></big> <center></center><big></big> <small><small style="float: right; padding-right: 130px;">source &nbsp;<a href="">xxxx</a></small></small> <blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"></blockquote><object data="YourFile.pdf" type="application/x-pdf" title="SamplePdf" width=200 height=100> <a href="YourFile.pdf">LINK</a> <embed width="550" height="400" src=""> </embed> <iframe width="100%" height="400" scrolling="" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen> </iframe> </object> <div style="margin-top:1em;"></div>[ ] --> <a name="banx"></a> <br />Regarding the EU Consultation Forum on domestic lighting November 25 meeting in Brussels<br />A <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/11/preliminary-report-november-25-eu.html">report</a> was posted here November 26.<br /><br />Reproduced here:<br /><br />Concerning the EU (European Commission) Light Bulb Review and their proposal to alter the regulations as laid out in detail <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/10/eu-to-delay-ban-for-2-years-on-halogen.html">previously</a>:<br /><br />Yesterday saw the previously mentioned meeting in Brussels of the Consultation Forum involving the Commission, national energy representatives and a few lighting "stakeholder" delegates. <br />I will expand on anything arising out of this: Suffice to say that while LightingEurope (representing Philips, Osram, GE and other major manufacturers, pre-meeting <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/11/eu-commission-light-bulb-ban-review-3.html">official statement</a> of their position) and a few other lighting representatives were for the continuation of halogens without time limit, most of the energy agency type people predictably wanted to keep the 2016 ban, with some national representatives (eg Germany, Austria and Italy) wanting at least a delay, in that sense siding with the Commission 2 year delay proposal.<br />As this was just a consultation, decisions will take some time yet. Final decision on all aspects of the regulation review will be made by April 2014.<br /><br />The most surprising aspect of the meeting was the focus on clamping down on "rough service" type industrial bulb sales to ordinary consumers - EU light bulb sales inspectors will likely be authorised to patrol the sale outlets of member nations, as already demanded by Energy Commissioner Oettinger for his native Germany. The idea therefore already has strong backing from the boss - and this time nearly all are for it, including the major manufacturers, as a lot of those bulbs are cheap Chinese imports. Thereby also "useful EU job creation" achieved. General applause. <br />What, the consumer? When were consumers ever important?!<br /><br /><br /># &nbsp; # &nbsp; #<br /><br /><br />Award winning (Lux UK <a href="http://www.mondoarc.com/news/2170223/kevan_shaw_wins_lighting_designer_of_the_year_award.html">Designer of the Year</a>) Kevan Shaw of <a href="http://savethebulb.org/">SavetheBulb.org</a> has published a fuller analysis of the meeting and future prospects... <a href="http://savethebulb.org/the-latest-from-europe">The Latest from Europe</a> <br /><br />Extracts, my highlighting:<br /><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;"><br /><big><b>The Latest from Europe</b></big><br /><br />Review of Ecodesign regulation 244/2009 stage 6<br /><br />The Consultation meeting that took place in Brussels on 25 November revealed clearly that <b>the EcoDesign process</b>, particularly for lighting products <b>is now only a political action</b>.<br /><br />In the meeting the <b>majority of the national representatives spoke against delay</b> or removal of the ban, not for substantial reasons of energy savings but because it <b>might be seen as a precedent for delays or revisions for other products in the EcoDesign system</b>. <br />There was also considerable support not to look at this issue in isolation but conflate it with the omnibus review of the regulation next year to save these civil servants from having to attend any more meetings where they are clearly completely <b>out of their depth on fundamentals of the technologies being discussed</b>.<br /><br />The gloves are also off the conceit that these regulations are “Technology Neutral”.<br />Clear statements were made that <b>funding would be provided for SSL but not other research</b>. <br />[this was also seen in the circulated Commission proposal leading up to the meeting] <br /><br />The UK representative claimed that the statements in lighting industry press clearly showed that SSL was the "<b>only future for lighting</b>". This obvious gullibility to marketing messages is truly scary in the context of pan European regulations that will, in effect kill off the only remaining bulk lamp manufacturing in Europe, which is tungsten halogen.<br /><br />There is also seemingly <b>no need to prove</b> that the existing regulation has been effective in its <b>core purpose of saving energy</b>. The argument here is that energy use may have gone up despite the regulations but if the regulations had not been in place the increase would have been far worse!.....It was pointed out that the regulation has been very effective in bringing to the public’s attention that "<b>something was being done</b>" about energy use in Europe.<br /><br />As for any negative impact on consumers, these are brushed under the carpet of savings on energy bills. <br />The <b>unrealistic life</b> in service expectations of extortionately priced SSL lamps, again largely statistical rather than actual, feed this argument. <br /><b>Health concerns?</b> Not the concern of this process SCENHIR deals with that. <br /><b>Product safety?</b> Again not a concern of this process. In the last year there have been 6 recalls of LED replacement lamps that I am aware of. These have been for life safety issues, touchable parts of the lamps becoming live to mains electricity. Throughout my long career in lighting I can only remember one recall of an incandescent lamp and that was because some shattered when they failed at end of a full service life.<br /><br />There was some indication of the expectations of the omnibus review. <br />Spearheaded by Sweden and vociferously supported by CLASP the umbrella research organisation funded by the green pressure groups including WWF, Greenpeace etc, the proposal is that <b>only A class lamps</b> should be available in the market by <b>2020 if not sooner</b>! ....Even SSL will not be able to deliver the warm colour appearance good colour rendering light that we are used to at the levels of “efficiency” demanded. <br />The near future looks like becoming cold and dead looking place.<br /></blockquote><br /><br /><big><b>Comment</b></big><br /><br />Excellent if a little depressing!<br /><br />The declared position of the main lighting manufacturers is as seen against the energy agency type people, but clearly<br />their worry of losing profit is not the same as when cheap simple incandescents were legal.<br />It would rather seem to be a marketing exercise for manufacturers to support the more expensive halogens, also presumably having more of an "ear to the ground" of what consumers want - compared to the civil servants and ideological fanatics as per the above. But manufacturers also know full well that they can simply point a finger at the Commission for any unpopular decision made (and in addition can then claim to have "tried on behalf of consumers to save the halogens"). Maybe that's their game all along - they know full well the position of agencies and Commission, and at the end of the day can simply count the profit - and reap all the subsidies - pertaining to LED manufacture and sales.<br />That leaves naive people like me thinking that manufacturers, for once, might have been concerned about people's choices without wholly regard to profit.<br />But, to repeat, manufacturers can and arguably should lobby for profitable decisions on behalf of their shareholders.<br />The problem, as always, is the extent that the Commission only listens to them, or indeed the national agency types or environmental pressure groups - which brings us back to the democratic acceptance of other views, and the various comments by other groups and individuals as highlighted here in recent days.<br /><br /><br />There is a further aspect to the review democracy, as highlighted by these type of meetings:<br />Not just who is allowed to attend, and not just that others are not heard (file your opinion in the waste paper bin/trash can), but of knowing who was there in the first place.<br /><br />Who sits on the "<i>Commission Ecodesign Committee</i>", that pours out legislative initiatives on everything from light bulbs to vacuum cleaners to TV sets, which will apply to the EU?<br />Nobody knows - Nobody is <b>allowed</b> to know.<br />By research reports and other roundabout ways (eg who sits on the DG Energy C3 Committee on Energy Efficient Products) one gets to know some likely names on the Commission side - but that's it.<br />They don't even seem to have a secretariat. At most they have an email address type "tren-ecodesign@ec.europa.eu" but they never reply.<br />You might as well be dealing with the Cosa Nostra.<br /><br />Much the same with these <i>Consultation Forums</i>.<br />Again, by various reports one finds out some likely representatives.<br />The Commission can rightly say that it's up to National Governments, Trade Organisations and Energy Saving Associations to decide who they want to send to represent them. <br />But that does not excuse <b>saying afterwards who attended</b> - after all, they have a monitored, named guest list of all who attended. <br />It's not as if it was the Ku Klux Klan attendance list. Presumably there is no shame/reluctance in name revelation.<br /><br />The point is this: The Commission has sole rights to initiate legislation in the EU - presumably those selectively invited are invited to give valued input into this, and presumably they would not attend otherwise.<br />They should therefore stand by what they say - openly.<br />It's not good enough to say "by contacting the organisations concerned, they may say who was sent".<br />No real minutes are revealed (see the summary type below), no real information about what was discussed or who said what.<br /><br />That's not all.<br />In any voting procedure, only the overall result is given. Not even the names of countries/organisations (as applicable) voting for/against, let alone reprentatives themselves.<br /><br />Compare with equivalent launching of consultative forums or hearings in say the USA, or in individual European countries at least of the Western democratic tradition.<br />I have covered <b>US Senate Hearings</b>, similar to the EU Consultation Forum in having invited representative participation - that's even televised (C-Span) or retrievable by video. Video!!!<br />If any EU Commission hearing even had summary minutes released by someone, he or she would probably be crucified within minutes up on the Berlaymont.<br /><br /><br />The following shows replies I recently received looking for information.<br /><br />They suggest looking at vacuum cleaner legislation as an example (this was before the light bulb review).<br />Vacuum cleaners of course will also soon be limited in energy use, so expect to spend twice as long cleaning up and use the same energy anyway.<br /><br /><br /><blockquote style="background:#eeeeee; padding:6px;">Members of the Regulatory Committee are representatives of Member<br />States of the European Union (EU). A list of the persons who<br />participated in a particular meeting is not published on the EU’s<br />‘EUROPA’ web portal.<br /><br />You may want to contact directly the Permanent Representations of the<br />Member States to enquire about whether the names of delegates in a<br />particular meeting are available. You can find the relevant contact<br />details on the EU’s ‘whoiswho’ portal at the following URL:<br />http://europa.eu/whoiswho/public/index.cfm?fuseaction=idea.hierarchy&nodeID=3780&lang=en<br /><br />Furthermore, you might be interested to know that by consulting a<br />Summary Record of one of the Ecodesign regulatory Committee, you can<br />find at the end of the document the Ministry/Department/Agency which<br />represented the Member State in that particular Committee meeting<br />[Ecodesign Committee has the reference: C07900]. An example is the<br />meeting of 27/02/2013 on vacuum cleaners:<br /><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm?do=search.documentdetail&F8O7DquaYsFIjeSNfyvxNCwAqN39eC+0fCcDkqDDB/sxdbQ+AI/X9VTTMRqv00VG">http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm?do=search.documentdetail&F8O7DquaYsFIjeSNfyvxNCwAqN39eC+0fCcDkqDDB/sxdbQ+AI/X9VTTMRqv00VG</a><br /><br />We hope you find this information useful. Please contact us again if<br />you have other questions.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />PDF documents below, in case not seen:<br /><a href="http://ceolas.net/EUdocs/1stPart-EU-ecodesign-meeting-vacuum-cleaners-13-feb-2013.pdf">Document 1</a><br />A typical Ecodesign meeting's summary report and (as here) a brief voting record<br /><br /><a href="http://ceolas.net/EUdocs/Regulatory_Committee_on_the_Ecodesign_of_energy.pdf">Document 2</a><br />A list of typical national ministries and agencies represented (anonymously)<br /><br /><br /><iframe style="margin-left:-1.2em;" width=105% height=2400 src="http://ceolas.net/EUdocs/1stPart-EU-ecodesign-meeting-vacuum-cleaners-13-feb-2013.pdf"></iframe><br /><br /><br /><iframe style="margin-left:-1.2em;" width=105% height=1220 src="http://ceolas.net/EUdocs/Regulatory_Committee_on_the_Ecodesign_of_energy.pdf"></iframe><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#ban">How Regulations are Wrongly Justified</a> <br />14 points, referenced:<br />Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs. <br />&nbsp;http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2013/11/kevan-shaw-report-november-25-eu.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Lighthouse)0